What is a Militia?

[Chairboy]

Every other right recognized in the Bill of Rights is an individual right, not a 'group' one.

Why would folks expect the 2nd to be the one exception?  That's just silly.

[lazs2]

I know this is a lot to read but the gist is that the court has always avoided the issue.. probly will this time too.   They have ruled in the past to say that the feds could limit the use of arms that were not useful for a combatant... bingalong would be laughed out with his "there is no need for an m16" idea.

they have ruled that the insane and the felon who signed away his rights could not have a firearm (or vote).

No where do they say that it is not an individual right.  No where except in a new jersey lower court do they say the national guard is the militia.  or.. that active membership in one is required... think about it.. that would mean that if you belonged to the national guard.. you could bear arms anywhere... your right could not be "infringed"  you could be armed but other citizens could not!  even when not on active duty or in uniform!

no.. the militia has to be everyone and it is simply one reason to keep and bear arms.. not a condition to do so... not a condition of an inherent right.. just as belonging to a political party is not the only way that you can have free speech.

lazs

[Toad]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
When it says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, it means both by the Federal Government, and the States government.

The aforementioned quote from Presser seems to contradict you. Do you have an explanation for that?

The Court goes on (Presser):
 
 "But a conclusive answer to the contention that this Amendment
 prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the
 Amendment is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the
 National Government, and not upon that of the States" ..." [p.619]

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Every other right recognized in the Bill of Rights is an individual right, not a 'group' one.

Why would folks expect the 2nd to be the one exception?  That's just silly.

I think what is confusing some is the definition of a Militia is not one single statement.

In the below, one of the statements stands out to link all citizens to State Militias: * The entire able-bodied male (and perhaps female) population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.

Militia = We The People, the US civilians, in our entirety; regardless of present active or non-active Militia status.
 
We The People are "The Militia"; "The Militia" is We The People.

We are either active members or inactive members of the Militia at any given point in time but by definition we are all "The Militia."

TIGERESS

"Militia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
The term Militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency, law enforcement, or paramilitary service, and those engaged in such activity, without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. Legal and historical meanings of Militia include:

* Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.

* The entire able-bodied male (and perhaps female) population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.

* A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.

* A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.

* A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.

* An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various name in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or State Defense Forces."

[lazs2]

Toad... I agree that it says that.    I think that it was a bad ruling made to skirt the real tough decision.

It would mean that the constitution was only a federal document and the states did not need to observe it.   That the feds had no power over the states.

That civil rights and free speech were up to the states.. that slavery was up to the states.

I don't think they want to go this route this time.. too many people watching.

They are going to have to come up with something else this time to dodge the real issue.

What I would be happy with is that they agreed that hand held weapons..even full auto could not be infringed and that carrying discretely (concealed) could not be infringed except in courts or such but...

That breaking the law with a firearm proved you a criminal and insane... not able bodied.. and you could lose your right.. that being on parole made you not a full citizen for instance.

It would be found that no increase in crime or murder occured.. those who bought full autos would be very careful with them so as to keep their rights (just as they are now) and crime would most probably go down.

The CDC just published it's study that no gun law has every reduced crime.. this will probly influence any decision based on citizens being their own worst enemy types of idiotic theory.  

Every time the lefties predict carnage when citizens are given more of their second amendment rights... they are proved wrong..

Every time the lefties pass some gun grabbing gun control law they say it will make us safer and they are proven wrong... it is time to ignore them and let a new experiment rule..

Let us go back to the freedoms our founders knew were ours by right of being a human.  

Nothing bad will happen.

lazs

[AKIron]

I think the court will do their best to avoid ruling whether the 2nd is about individual or group rights. Try as I am though I don't see how they can avoid this based on the case they've agreed to consider. Perhaps they'll find some technical error made by the higher court and overturn their decision based upon that?

[Maverick]

Originally posted by Toad

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lasersailor184
When it says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, it means both by the Federal Government, and the States government.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The aforementioned quote from Presser seems to contradict you. Do you have an explanation for that?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court goes on (Presser):

"But a conclusive answer to the contention that this Amendment
prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the
Amendment is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the
National Government, and not upon that of the States" ..." [p.619]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Toad,

The same argument was made by the state (AZ.) in regards to rights against self incrimination and right to legal representation during questioning by local and state police. They argued that the Bill of Rights was only binding against the Federal govt. and did not apply to the lower levels of govt. or Police. In the Miranda ruling that was made clear that constitutional protections extend to ALL govt. entities and not just in Federal cases.

IMO that was a very proper and correct ruling and does not infringe on states rights or responsibilities. We are all citizens (those of us who ARE citizens anyhow) of the same Unites States and the constitution is the basis for ALL of our governing bodies.

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by lazs2



Every time the lefties pass some gun grabbing gun control law they say it will make us safer and they are proven wrong... it is time to ignore them and let a new experiment rule..

Let us go back to the freedoms our founders knew were ours by right of being a human.  

Nothing bad will happen.

lazs

Agreed!

TIGERESS

[bustr]

Laz,

Even if the SCOTAS wimps out and returns a vauge and micron thin view of the 2nd amendmant this time. It will become the corner stone for the 21st century on the relationship of American government(s) vs. 'We the People".

All government(s) ultimatly hing on the power to kill its citizens. Or to coherce them with the threat of death or the loss of freedom backed by the use of whepons.

There is not a vauge middle ground in this. No matter how narrow the ruling, only one ideological camp will claim victory after the ruling. Are we ready to hear from 9 unellected arbitrators of life and death, what the Law truely thinks of "We the People" and thier protection by the constitution? The 2nd amendmant is the constitution's canary. That is why the fight over it has become so extrem and bizarr.

We could find ourselves castrated over night and resembling England before the second decade of this century. I have often heard that neither the Left nor the NRA really ever wanted the 2nd to make it to the SCOTUS. Once there, the end would be in sight for either ideology after the ruleing.

[Hornet33]

I don't think it really matters one way or anouther what the SC decides. There is no way the government will be able to take all the guns out of the hands of the citizens. Not in this country. There are way to many people that grew up on John Wayne westerns and that TRUELY believe that we as individuals have the God given RIGHT to protect ourselves from any and all threats to our freedom, even from our very own government.

Personaly I'd like to fire every single politician in DC. None of them are doing a very good job and as a tax payer those people are supposed to work FOR me. I damn sure didn't vote for any of those idiots to rule me even though that's what many of them seem to think they are there for.

[Toad]

I'm just pointing out that the only thing that matter is what the SC thinks.

We can have all the opinions on the Constitution that we care to have. Our opinions do not make the law.

The opinions of the SC make the law. All one has to do is look around the nation and see the restrictions on gun ownership at the state and local levels that DO exist to see what stands as the law right now. Clearly, the states and locals CAN restrict (infringe) the right to bear arms. They are doing so.

[Hornet33]

Toad if our form of government as framed in the consitution is "of the people, by the people, and for the people" then yes our opinions do in fact matter and we the people do make the laws, not the Supreme Court.

What most people in the country have forgotten is that the government is supposed to DIRECTLY represent the collective will of the people. Most people today think the government is there to provide us with everthing we need and to take care of us and that whatever the politicians decide to do is fine because they know whats best for everyone.

That's a bunch of crap. If the SC were to rule on the 2nd and say that it's the governments right to decide who can or can't own a gun, or were to come out and outlaw guns all together for "the good of the people" as many liberals would love to see happen, I think you would see a major shift in the general public as to how much people would start to get involved in what the government is doing. Maybe to the point of forcibly replacing the entire government all together.

What has happened over the years is that the SC has injected itself too far into the making of laws and that is not it was intended to do. They are only there to interpret the law as it applies to the constitution. They have gotten away from that position to the point that now when they make a rulling on something they are in fact legislating the law as it is applied to everyone and that's the job of congress, not the SC.

Prime excample is Roe vs Wade. The SC legislated on the issue of abortion with their decision. They made abortion legal throughout the country with their decision, when in fact it should have been sent back to the states to be legislated within the states congressional systems.

[Toad]

I am not disagreeing. I'm pointing out how it is. The SC makes the rules; if you look at how the government was set up, this is really no change. It's just that over the centuries the type of person involved in our government has seriously, seriously changed.

It started with men who would risk their death for freedom.

Now look at what (not who; I don't think these clowns deserve to be who) we elect.

[Toad]

BTW, look at the current crop of c*ap and tell me which one you think would be willing to lay his life on the line for this country and freedom. Take the job knowing there's a strong possibility his/her death would be the result of honoring the principles of the Founders.

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by Hornet33
Toad if our form of government as framed in the consitution is "of the people, by the people, and for the people" then yes our opinions do in fact matter and we the people do make the laws, not the Supreme Court.

What most people in the country have forgotten is that the government is supposed to DIRECTLY represent the collective will of the people. Most people today think the government is there to provide us with everthing we need and to take care of us and that whatever the politicians decide to do is fine because they know whats best for everyone.

That's a bunch of crap. If the SC were to rule on the 2nd and say that it's the governments right to decide who can or can't own a gun, or were to come out and outlaw guns all together for "the good of the people" as many liberals would love to see happen, I think you would see a major shift in the general public as to how much people would start to get involved in what the government is doing. Maybe to the point of forcibly replacing the entire government all together.

What has happened over the years is that the SC has injected itself too far into the making of laws and that is not it was intended to do. They are only there to interpret the law as it applies to the constitution. They have gotten away from that position to the point that now when they make a rulling on something they are in fact legislating the law as it is applied to everyone and that's the job of congress, not the SC.

Prime excample is Roe vs Wade. The SC legislated on the issue of abortion with their decision. They made abortion legal throughout the country with their decision, when in fact it should have been sent back to the states to be legislated within the states congressional systems.

The US Supreme Court is part of the US Federal Government thus, answerable to We The People.

If the USSC gets it wrong, and it is serious enough, there are means to correct it; The Founding Fathers made sure of that.

The US Federal Government is not the master of We The People, rather the servant.

All too often I have seen the USSC used as a tool of both political parties to thrust party idology upon the population.

It seems to me... hard-line party politics should not be tolerated within the USSC, yet it is.

In my view, the absolute seriousness of the right to keep and bear arms had better make the USSC take a very careful and sober approach to this.

We The People are not all asleep.

TIGERESS