Select-fire

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Wow, these are good questions! I will try to answer as best I can.

How would a group of people organize to remove tyranny in modern day America, (i.e., in your opinion)...Let's assume the voting booth is "out the window' and there is clearly a tyrant attempting to "takeover".

Well being a student of history I will try to approach this one in a different way. One thing I have learned about catastrophic things like war is that they seldom seem to come about like we think they will.

When I was a student at the Naval War College during the '90s we spent a year trying to figure out who our next conventional enemy would be. We figured Iran and North Korea and we planned how we would beat them. We were wrong of course and terrorism became the next challenge for us to face.

So in that vein I think the next "tyranny" that we could possibly face would not be the Nazi/Stalin scenario that so many seem to believe will occur complete with cattle cars and concentration camps. I see political and community apathy being the real danger and so the minority of gun owners would never be able to change that threat with the mere ownership of guns.

In other words I cannot see a "tyranny" as many hold out here on TFL that could be opposed by Joe Citizen with a machine gun.

Wouldn't the unregulated militia, or State authorities, then be allowed to form well regulated militias?

When you say unregulated are you talking about unorganized? Keep in mind the unorganized militia was a term that came out around 1830 as a way to keep people OUT of serving in the militia.

Nevertheless, the states are allowed to form their militias now. Nothing to stop them. Ever wonder why they don't do it? Even Walter Dellinger agreed with that and I posted links to his comments on that before. The militias died because the states did not want to pay for them, they were ineffective in defending the nation, and citizens did not want to serve in them. The unorganized militia that exists in statute today has no rights, duties, or responsibilities and so is a dead letter in fact as well. It is a mere statutory construct.

However the 2A part of the equation was that our nation would be defended by a small standing army with a large state militia system and the 2A was written to keep state control intact over those miltias that the Federalist COTUS had given the Fed large amounts of control over these militias to.

The idea was that with a small standing army and a large state militia defending the country the ability of a tryant to take over would not be there since the state militias would not allow them to effect such and would out number the standing army. That dynamic is no more and after the civil war I don't think the state militias could perform those functions.

 

[Al Norris]

Using the Gentleman's own criteria, using the backdrop of international terrorism, all that would be required would be a nod from your city fathers. Perhaps even the local Sheriff or Police Chief, to form a "reaction" unit to protect the infrastructure and provide a "ready reserve" for the uniformed officers of your area.

Just tossing this to the wind.....

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I say, the 2nd Amendment allows us to form well regulated militias for this purpose. By "us" I mean the unregulated militias. Whether this "formation" is successful depends on how it is received by all of America. But that's how it always is in other similar situations throughout time IMHO.

I would disagree and say that looking at our history no such formation ever existed nor was planned to be. Leave aside the quotes from the founders about the republican ideal of the militia and look to what really existed then and you will see that to be true. I repeat, the 2A was never written to be a suicide clause of the republic. I think what you are talking about is a grass roots revolution (rebellion) and I don't think the 2A was written to that end.

Btw, I would make you the "Duke of NY" because you seem to be an honest, decent guy.

Well, thank you Sir and for that honor you will be the "The Dude in Waiting"!

(As to full auto ever becoming a commonly used weapon, that appears to be a red herring argument because the 1934 NFA Act came out reasonably soon after automatic, hand held, weapons were even available. I mean, they were only around for about 15 to 20 years by 1934 weren't they? And they were expensive I assume. [The first Thompson sub-machine gun was manufactured in 1921 and the BAR came out around the time of WWI.].)

I would counter that they are not in common use because they were not commonly used. Sorry for the Zen like logic but that sums it up best I think. For reasons of cost (you mentioned), wasteful use of ammo, practicality for law abiding uses, and dangerous design(supressive fire and area denial) I think people just didn't want them and I am talking all the way to 1986 when the registry closed and they weren't that expensive to buy. Now they are very expensive and so a small minority of gun folk long for their return.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

If I may summarize, TG seems to feel that only the states have the right to organize a revolution against a theoretically tyrannical government, and that common folks lack the ability, right, or even apparently the potential to organize and train. Also, despite it's ongoing presence in the the BOR, TG believes the militia to be a 'dead letter'. "Dead and buried over a hundred years ago", never to be resurrected under any circumstances, except possibly by our trusted state governments, who are apparently not susceptible to any despotic leanings in TG's world.

Not quite. I assert that the well-regulated militia in the 2A was the State Militias that existed at that time. It is true that BoRs still include such and as such a state may form a militia for whatever reason it sees fit. That is the STATE, not a group of individuals. Many states forbid private militias today and their laws have survived court scrutiny. I say the armed well-regulated militia is a dead letter because the states made it so. I do believe the founders did not fear "despotic leanings" in the states only the fed and that is why the BoR did not apply to the States when they were first written.

But my main question to TG, this time, is whether regular unregulated militia folk are allowed to form well regulated militias pursuant to the 2nd Amendment?

No. Not under the 2A. Only the states could do so. As stated above many states have laws against doing so and they have been found to be constitutional.

Using the Gentleman's own criteria, using the backdrop of international terrorism, all that would be required would be a nod from your city fathers. Perhaps even the local Sheriff or Police Chief, to form a "reaction" unit to protect the infrastructure and provide a "ready reserve" for the uniformed officers of your area.

My understanding is that the "nod" would have to come from the Governor unless state law said otherwise. Now, I do not equate a LEO asking a citizen or citizens to help him effect an arrest to be a militia. Also, any such "reaction unit" would have to answer to legally elected authority and I couldn't imagine a state allowing that but they could. Furthermore I do not consider a neighborhood group (remember my picture of "Drunks with Guns") that forms up for self defense during a disaster or riot to be a militia either.

ETA:

I had a similar discussion with TG many months ago and I think he went away with the thought that it might be ok for the unregulated militia to organize their own well regulated militia. You know, with experienced military or LEO personnel as officers, trainers, etc.

That wasn't me IIRC. I would not agree with that construct for those are not militia but unauthorized paramilitary organizations.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Not quite. I assert that the well-regulated militia in the 2A was the State Militias that existed at that time. It is true that BoRs still include such and as such a state may form a militia for whatever reason it sees fit. That is the STATE, not a group of individuals. Many states forbid private militias today and their laws have survived court scrutiny. I say the armed well-regulated militia is a dead letter because the states made it so. I do believe the founders did not fear "despotic leanings" in the states only the fed and that is why the BoR did not apply to the States when they were first written.

So if I understand what you are saying, you say that the BoR was meant so that the States could form a militia to overthrough an overbearing federal government (which means instead of seceding, the South should have engaged the North in a true Civil War for the overall country) and that "the people" have no right to organize to overthrow anything (State or Federal government).

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

So if I understand what you are saying, you say that the BoR was meant so that the States could form a militia to overthrough an overbearing government (which means instead of seceding, the South should have engaged the North in a true Civil War for the overall country) and that "the people" have no right to organize to overthrow anything (State or Federal government).

Well, we are talking about the Second Amendment right? The States already had militias (they were formed by their colonial charters for their common defense not as a hedge against tyranny) but the States wanted to make sure the Fed could not disarm their militias since the militia clause of the COTUS gave Congress the power to organize, arm and discipline them. The 2A specifically guarantees the the right of states to ensure the arming of their militias in the face of fears that the federal government might effectively deny to arms to a state controlled militia. However, those fears never came true. It was NEVER intended to protect the right to armed paramilitary activities by self-selected groups outside of civilian political control.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

The 2A specifically guarantees the the right of states to ensure the arming of their militias in the face of fears that the federal government might effectively deny to arms to a state controlled militia. However, those fears never came true.

Was not the South, after deciding to not to play cooperatively and to withdraw from the Union, invaded and their State militias physically disarmed by the Federal government?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Was not the South, after deciding to not to play cooperatively and to withdraw from the Union, invaded and their State militias physically disarmed by the Federal government?

Not really, the Confederate Government specifically created a Confederate Army (same as the North did) that was distinct from all the state militias. The Confederacy fought the government with an Army not a militia.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

More on the Militia in the South after the Civil War.

"Following the Civil War, the militia was dead in spite of statutes to the contrary. Indeed, during most of the Reconstruction years the volunteer militia was dormant, except in ex-Confederate states. There the provisional governors had permission to constitute militia ... [These militia were] virtually the old Confederate Army down to the worn gray uniforms left over from the Civil War. A Confederate militia was intolerable to the Radical Republicans; so when they regained control of Congress they attached a rider to the Army Appropriations Act of March 2, 1867, that finally prohibited the formation of military units in the once Confederate states. President Johnson, rather than see soldiers go without pay, signed the bill but attached to it a sharp dissent that it was unconstitutional to deny a state the right to have militia.
"It soon became obvious that the state governments, forming under the radical regime, had to have more support than the scattered units of the regular army could provide. Accordingly, two years and one day after prohibiting militia in the rebel states, Congress on March 2, 1869, reallowed it. As far back as March 1862, Congress had stricken "white" from the basic militia statute, so the Radical Republicans intended to make the southern militia predominantly black..."

"The southern militia units, usually referred to as Negro militia, were not all black. There were some white units, but the two colors did not mingle...

"To the white people of the South and the Dunning school of historians of Reconstruction, the Negro militia was only made up of swaggering bullies. The whites opted, therefore, to use unbridled violence if necessary to eliminate it. Two hundred and ninety white rifle companies sprang up at one time in South Carolina alone. From one place or another, they found weapons. Although they lacked official sanction, these companies had behind them the determination of the society to establish white supremacy at all cost. Actual clashes between black and white units were rare, but bloodshed was not. White riflemen ambushed and killed black officers and white supporters of the Negro militia. These assassinations often took place in broad daylight with witnesses, but prosecutions were non-existent. This way, in the end, the leadership that supported the black militia was either killed or intimidated. When the Democrats returned to power in state after state of the ex-Confederacy, they terminated the black militia, disarmed the blacks, and excluded them from any role in the militia." - History of the Militia and the National Guard, 1983 John K. Mahon pp. 108-109.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

There is no way that a single State militia could throw off the federal government alone, even back in the 1860's. You say that States grouping their militias together to confront the federal government means they are forming armies and are therefore in violation of the Constitution and illegal.

So what is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

There is no way that a single State militia could throw off the federal government alone, even back in the 1860's.

That's not the point. Go back and look at what I posted about the fear of the Founding Fathers of a large standing army and the concern a tyrant could use one to control all the states and how ALL the State Militias would oppose such a move. That was not the reason the Civil War was fought. Abraham Lincoln was not a tyrant (I am from the south too) and was not trying to take control of the nation regardless of what the south thought. Do you think that if ALL the states or even 90% of them opposed the Fed in 1860 when the standing army had about 16,000 men that would not have stopped any Federal move?

You say that States grouping their militias together to confront the federal government means they are forming armies and are therefore in violation of the Constitution and illegal.

It was in 1861. It was treason and rebellion and as the COTUS provided it was crushed. None of the conditions many of you talk about that would provide legitimacy for revolution was happening before the Civil War. But we all know what that war was REALLY about.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

So pretty much, now that we have a National Guard, fully armed and supplied by the Federal Government, supposedly under the command of the governor of the State, and any militia not formed by the State is illegal, the 2nd Amendment is meaningless.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

So pretty much, now that we have a National Guard, fully armed and supplied by the Federal Government, supposedly under the command of the governor of the State, and any militia not formed by the State is illegal, the 2nd Amendment is meaningless.

Certainly not! First of all don't throw Heller away for Pete's Sake! We have an individual RKBA unconnected with service in the militia that the 2A protects. That is huge!

Second, depending on the particular state it might not be illegal to form an unauthorized paramilitary group but there is no 2A protection of such nor is it a militia. Also, your "membership" (if you aren't too old) in the unorganized militia gives you no special rights, duties or responsibilities.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Not to worry. I was merely seeking to understand your position on the whole militia deal, some of which I do not agree with.

One thing I think is that the "people" whether legal or not, no longer possess that mindset required to take on the federal government. I don't even believe the American people have the mindset required to win a war on the scale of WWII.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Not to worry. I was merely seeking to understand your position on the whole militia deal, some of which I do not agree with.

Whew! Yeah I was hoping you wouldn't think I believe the 2A is meaningless.

One thing I think is that the "people" whether legal or not, no longer possess that mindset required to take on the federal government. I don't even believe the American people have the mindset required to win a war on the scale of WWII.

I hope that is not true politically. However, as to my son's generation, the Millenials, I am quite impressed with them especially in our armed forces. They are good!

 

[RDak]

TG: Thanks for your answers. Interesting.

Btw, I don't think you feel the 2nd Amendment is worthless at all.

You are more strict in a sense as to how the 2nd Amendment is "triggered" via the militia portion of the amendment than I am.

I do believe "well regulated" has a meaning and that might be where we disagree somewhat.

You seem to feel the well regulated militia can only be derived from State authorization. I'm not entirely convinced that that is the only way a well regulated militia can be formed.

Grassroots organizing can "grow" into a well regulated militia without the expressed consent of the State authorities, as long as it is eventually accepted by the State IMHO.

I do believe that a well regulated militia has to eventually have some sort of governmental involvement. Not sure it has to be started by the State though.

You do make a good point though when stating, in so many words, that the founding fathers might say: "RDak, you have to have some State involvement in order to form a well regulated militia, in the context we envisioned, when drafting the 2nd Amendment". (That is a good point on your part IMHO.)

(As to the NFA, $200 was alot of money for almost the entire period of 1934 through 1986 for many, many people. That is arguably a substantial reason for automatic weapons not being in common use either. "Either" being in reference to the automatic, hand-held weapon's short period of existence before the passing of the 1934 NFA Act. Not to mention the problem I assume many, many people had getting a permit approved by their sheriff. Oh well, this is subjective on my part.)

Anyway, thanks for answering my hypothetical. (I like talking about this stuff even if we don't entirely agree.)

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

You are more strict in a sense as to how the 2nd Amendment is "triggered" via the militia portion of the amendment than I am.

Well, IMO the real beauty of our constitution and what really protects us from tyranny is the separation of powers. That was so brilliantly done and is I believe the real genius of the COTUS.

The State Militias have faded long ago and given way to a large standing army and the National Guard but look how much we depend on these separated powers! Heller is but one part of that benefit and that is why I feel participation in the political process is so important.

I will defend my freedoms with my vote and political activism when needed. I will defend myself from criminals with my gun. I think today that those who choose to face off against the government with guns will end up like the Branch Davidians or MOVE.

 

[maestro pistolero]

Branch Davidians, kids and all, were incinerated alive when the FBI accidentally ignited the compound. You might use a better example when touting the efficacy of the separation of powers.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Branch Davidians, kids and all, were incinerated alive when the FBI accidentally ignited the compound. You might use a better example when touting the efficacy of the separation of powers.

Not touting separation of powers with that example. Just the insanity of opposing by force the Federal Government and shooting Federal LEOs rather than using the courts and other legal means to redress grievances. BTW for what it's worth I lay that all on the head of David Koresh. But I don't want to get off track.

 

[maestro pistolero]

Not touting separation of powers with that example. But I don't want to get off track.

Understood. Koresh was certifiable, to be sure. But there were mistakes made that unnecessarily cost innocent lives. I'll leave it there.