What is a Militia?

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Toad
As a drive by poster, you are a rookie when compared to Arlo. You've still too much character to really beat him out for the crown. You actually do contribute to some threads.

I've never seen Laz need any help around here.  

Ahhhh .... character assassination through comparitive character assessment from someone incapable of exemplifying. Good job you.

[john9001]

Originally posted by Arlo
Ahhhh .... character assassination through comparitive character assessment from someone incapable of exemplifying. Good job you.

where did arlo learn to talk like that?  Must have been some liberal college.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by john9001
where did arlo learn to talk like that?  Must have been some liberal college.

Well, if fishing was catching you'd be Bubba Gump. But it ain't, Forrest.

[john9001]

run arlo run.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by john9001
run arlo run.

You "thrive" on your own confusion, don't you?

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by Toad
Post the question that the SC gave to both sides in this case. It's out there, it's easy to find. Then I'll at least know you tried to figure out what this case is about.

After you post it, I'll help you out a little with what's wrong with the DC brief.

Until you understand the SC question though, there's no point in even trying to help you.

you mean hear on page 3 of this thread I wish you would keep up.

Originally posted by Bingolong
United States v. Cruikshank  1875
Although the Enforcement Act had been designed primarily to halt the violence of the Ku Klux Klan in preventing blacks from voting, the Cruikshank court held that the Due Process and Equal Protection  Clauses apply only to state action, and not to actions of individuals

Presser v. Illinois  1886
But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment [the Second 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 state

Malitia Act 1903

Salina v. Blaksley 1905
The court said: "This view cannot be supported. The right to keep and bear arms for the common defense does not include the right to associate together as a military organization, or to drill and parade with arms in cities or towns, unless authorized to do so by law. This is a matter affecting the public security, quiet, and good order, and it is within the police power of the legislature to regulate the bearing of arms, so as to forbid such unauthorized drills and parades." The defendant was not a member of an organized militia, nor of any other military organization provided for by law, and was therefore not within the provision of the Bill of Rights, and was not protected by its terms.

The National Defense Act of 1916

The 1934 National Firearms Act

The Federal Firearms Act of 1938

United States v. Miller  1939
On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds,  reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared that no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, writing:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
Describing the constitutional authority under which Congress could call forth state militia, the Court stated:
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
The Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Maryland v. United States  1965
The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art. I. 8, cl. 15, 16, of the Constitution

The Gun Control Act of 1968

Burton v. Sills 1969
...Congress, though admittedly governed by the second amendment, may regulate interstate firearms so long as the regulation does not impair the maintenance of the active, organized militias of the states.
Lewis v. United States 1980
''Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.''

 The 1986 McClure-Volkmer Act
banned the sale of machine guns manufactured after the date of enactment to civilians, restricting sales of these weapons to the military and law enforcement

Perpich v. Department of Defense 1990
"The Dick Act divided the class of able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years of age into an "organized militia" to be known as the National Guard of the several states, and the remainder of which was then described as the "reserve militia", and which later statutes have termed the "unorganized militia." ... " In 1908, however, the statute was amended to provide expressly that the organized militia should be available for service "either within or without the territory of the United States." Hence, the National Guard is not the same as the unorganized militia.
This case is significant for Second Amendment case law in that it recognizes that the National Guard is one modern form of the militia under federal law.

Silveira v. Lockyer  2002
The Court engaged in an extensive analysis of the history of the Second Amendment and its attendant case law, and it ultimately determined that the Second Amendment does not guarantee individuals the right to keep and bear arms.


These are documented. The question the Supreme Court pose is whether the provisions of the D.C. statute “violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.”

[bustr]

So then after all of these pages of ego jousting, is this case the final bell weather in the ultimate argument:

Do We the People have protected inalliable rights per the constitution vs. The governments of the United States including federal,  have evolved to the condition that their own interests superced the constitutions express limitations to their evolved "rights by power to control" their subjects in the name of thier own "Entity called GOVERNMENT or Stateism"?

If this case does not rule for an individual right, then it sets formal public precedence which will be trumpeted by the media that the U.S. constitution has finally been found fluid and of no material protection to We the People and our rights of self determination and individual freedom.

"GOVERNMENT\Stateism",  it's needs and rights will hensforth be the supreme arbitor of We the People's lives. And we know the media will remind us at every turn in the future that the SCOTUS ruled We the People are no longer special and just shut up and toe the line like good ignorant pesants because we were stupid enough to let them and government prove we are too stupid to have individual rights and freedoms via the supreme court.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by bustr
So then after all of these pages of ego jousting, is this case the final bell weather in the ultimate argument:

Do We the People have protected inalliable rights per the constitution vs. The governments of the United States including federal,  have evolved to the condition that their own interests superced the constitutions express limitations to their evolved "rights by power to control" their subjects in the name of thier own "Entity called GOVERNMENT or Stateism"?

If this case does not rule for an individual right, then it sets formal public precedence which will be trumpeted by the media that the U.S. constitution has finally been found fluid and of no material protection to We the People and our rights of self determination and individual freedom.

"GOVERNMENT\Stateism",  it's needs and rights will hensforth be the supreme arbitor of We the People's lives. And we know the media will remind us at every turn in the future that the SCOTUS ruled We the People are no longer special and just shut up and toe the line like good ignorant pesants because we were stupid enough to let them and government prove we are too stupid to have individual rights and freedoms via the supreme court.

"Final bellweathers" tend not to be phrased in such a stilted manner. Let me give it some thought.

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by bustr
So then after all of these pages of ego jousting, is this case the final bell weather in the ultimate argument:

Do We the People have protected inalliable rights per the constitution vs. The governments of the United States including federal,  have evolved to the condition that their own interests superced the constitutions express limitations to their evolved "rights by power to control" their subjects in the name of thier own "Entity called GOVERNMENT or Stateism"?

If this case does not rule for an individual right, then it sets formal public precedence which will be trumpeted by the media that the U.S. constitution has finally been found fluid and of no material protection to We the People and our rights of self determination and individual freedom.

"GOVERNMENT\Stateism",  it's needs and rights will hensforth be the supreme arbitor of We the People's lives. And we know the media will remind us at every turn in the future that the SCOTUS ruled We the People are no longer special and just shut up and toe the line like good ignorant pesants because we were stupid enough to let them and government prove we are too stupid to have individual rights and freedoms via the supreme court.

Probable not.
Really it is very simple and the way the argument is phrased all the SC has to do is define a/the unorganized militia.
Since the organized militia has been defined. So has "the people" and "well regulated" and "keep and bear arms" and "not to in fringe" its really the only part left open.

Yes.... the right has to do with a/the militia
No... the right in inalienable /inherent

As I have been saying all along the militia is the hinge for which way the door swings. The 2nd  either slams shut, or swings wide open dependent on what a unorganized militia is.
Dependent on that, they could just say a militia is, as laz would like , every body under the sun OR they could say it is a citizen army dependent on being part of etc governed by etc regulated as etc...

I really can not believe that the simple question has turned into this. It is/was really very simple to figure out what direction this was going to go. To believe that this case was based on if I have a have a gun apart in my house yadayada sisboom ba, Is laughable!
Why do you think the SC wrote their own question? Which they hardly ever do.

[Edbert]

Originally posted by Bingolong

Yes.... the right has to do with a/the militia
No... the right in inalienable /inherent

Yes = more authority and control to the government
No = more rights for the individual citizen

[lazs2]

I think the team.. the new team after they fired the first guy.. of democrats and liberal lawyers who are trying to defend the "collective rights" silliness are wising up to the fact that the individual right is the only thing that will fly.

they now are focusing on part two... even if it is an individual right that the government has some right to restrict arms.

Bingie.. you are wrong on the militia being the hinge.. individual rights will be the hinge.   The words "the people" and "shall not be infringed" is what everyone sees.

I think that the SC has always stepped lightly around that part for good reason... if the polls are to be believed... more than 90% of Americans would be real upset to find out that "the people" meant the government.   and.. that democrats were trying to define "the people" as being meaningless.

I think that the supremes will pretty much ignore the militia issue... maybe a nod to the founders idea of what a militia is (every able bodied man) and go for a narrow decision..

That the second is just as it says and "the people" is the same for all of the amendments but that "infringed" does not mean any weapon anywhere.  

That DC does indeed infringe on the rights of the people for no reason. (no gun law has been shown to protect individuals)  and that they can't have a total ban and that making guns be taken apart or without ammo is really a ban.

In short.. I think that they will pretty much agree with the lower court decision that a gun taken apart or with no ammo is not a gun at all.

lazs

[Toad]

Originally posted by Arlo
Woof! Woof! Roughroughrough! Arf! Arf! ah-roo-roo-roo-ROO!

 

This is SO easy!

[Toad]

Originally posted by Bingolong
you mean hear on page 3 of this thread I wish you would keep up.

Actually, no, that is not what I meant.

The Justices chose to write out for themselves the constitutional question they will undertake to answer in Heller.

Both the defendants and the plaintiffs petitioned the United States Supreme Court to hear the case.

The questions posed for review by the petitioner (the District of Columbia) differed significantly from those posed by the respondent (Heller).

The District of Columbia's petition stated that the question presented was, "Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns."

Heller replied that the question was broader, to wit, "Whether the Second Amendment guarantees law-abiding, adult individuals a right to keep ordinary, functional firearms, including handguns, in their homes."

See if you can actually find the question the current SC justices have posed to both sides in the Heller case.

It will help you keep up.

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by Toad
Actually, no, that is not what I meant.

The Justices chose to write out for themselves the constitutional question they will undertake to answer in Heller.

Both the defendants and the plaintiffs petitioned the United States Supreme Court to hear the case.

The questions posed for review by the petitioner (the District of Columbia) differed significantly from those posed by the respondent (Heller).

The District of Columbia's petition stated that the question presented was, "Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns."

Heller replied that the question was broader, to wit, "Whether the Second Amendment guarantees law-abiding, adult individuals a right to keep ordinary, functional firearms, including handguns, in their homes."

See if you can actually find the question the current SC justices have posed to both sides in the Heller case.

It will help you keep up.

Na you go look it up I've posted it 3-4 times in this thread.

[Toad]

If you have, then you don't understand it and I can't help you in that event.