Author Topic: What is a Militia?  (Read 20182 times)

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
What is a Militia?
« Reply #60 on: November 22, 2007, 12:05:19 PM »
and bingalong..  it matters not what we "need".. are you saying that the people should not have the right to have an m16?   based on what?  that the national guard has enough weapons to protect us?

first of all.. that is absurd on the one hand.. if there is a riot and you are amoung  the first to be hit.. the national guard will do you no good.. you will be dead.

second.. if the government controls the national guard and the government decides to do away with the constitution altogether... 100,000,000 "people" armed with m16's will function exactly as the constitution intended.. "no standing army could stand against them"

seems you are proving my, and their, point.

Just out of curiosity... on the one hand we have me that says that we should be able to own any firearm we can afford... on the other end of the extreme we have the UN who believe that we should have only single shot weapons that are not capable of shooting a projectile more than 100 meters (most slingshots would be too powerful)

Where on that scale do you fit and why?    What possible reason would you have to limit any firearm?  what standard would you use?

lazs

Offline WWhiskey

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3122
What is a Militia?
« Reply #61 on: November 22, 2007, 03:03:15 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by SIG220
The opinion back at that time was that the militia was comprised of ALL MEN able to bear arms.   That is why the right was expressly given to the PEOPLE.   I do not believe that women were yet considered to legally be people back then.   That did not come until much later, as women eventually gained equal rights with men.

Jefferson was the main person behind having a Bill of Rights added to the Constitution.   In fact, he insisted on it, in order to gain his support for the Constitution.  He viewed it as being protection for the people from losing key rights to either the Federal or  State governments.

Here are quotes from Jefferson on these two issues:

"A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787.

"The governor is constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of  every man in it able to bear arms." --Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811.



SIG 220

this is how i think as well
 to better understand you must put yourself in 1776 U.S.  no tax base to build a militia or to arm it. the militia had to be of the people, who had arms to start with! the basic requirment of admittance into a militia was ,  do you have a gun, and do you know how to use it!
 the next militia you see in this country will be the one formed right after the gov. tries to take  the 2nd amendment away from the people.
the police tazer people at will without regard for there safety killing more and more of them every year now ! What do you think they will do to us when we cant defend ourselves at all. i abide by the law as best i can and served my country proudly for many years but the gov. as we know it is out of control .that is why we have the 2nd amendment, for people like me who think the gov. is no longer functioning in the best enterest of its people.
i do hope that  i am wrong and this gov. gets back on track!
Remember, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them
and yes i guess that makes me one too!
« Last Edit: November 22, 2007, 03:09:27 PM by WWhiskey »
Flying since tour 71.

Offline Tigeress

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1260
What is a Militia?
« Reply #62 on: November 22, 2007, 04:14:45 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
tigress.. when it is said that 49% of all households have a firearm in them.. it is pretty certain that this is a very low number.  

We all know several households that have (legally or otherwise) firearms in them that the government knows nothing about.. this is as it should be in my opinion but.. be that as it may...

We all know people who have guns that the government knows nothing about.

We all know people who don't own guns now that.. if they thought they might not be able to.. would rush out and get one.

The feds are very well aware of this.. they know how much we love our freedom to defend ourselves and..  I guess.. in that respect.. the fact that they have not disarmed us....

pretty much proves that the founders knew exactly what they were talking about don't it?

lazs


IT sure does, Lazs!

TIGERESS

Offline Tigeress

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1260
What is a Militia?
« Reply #63 on: November 22, 2007, 04:20:41 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by WWhiskey
this is how i think as well
 to better understand you must put yourself in 1776 U.S.  no tax base to build a militia or to arm it. the militia had to be of the people, who had arms to start with! the basic requirment of admittance into a militia was ,  do you have a gun, and do you know how to use it!
 the next militia you see in this country will be the one formed right after the gov. tries to take  the 2nd amendment away from the people.
the police tazer people at will without regard for there safety killing more and more of them every year now ! What do you think they will do to us when we cant defend ourselves at all. i abide by the law as best i can and served my country proudly for many years but the gov. as we know it is out of control .that is why we have the 2nd amendment, for people like me who think the gov. is no longer functioning in the best enterest of its people.
i do hope that  i am wrong and this gov. gets back on track!
Remember, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them
and yes i guess that makes me one too!


I read if a woman (or man) wants to have something like mace or pepper spray in Massachusetts that state requires a firearm owner's permit as if it was a gun.

TIGERESS

Offline Bingolong

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 330
What is a Militia?
« Reply #64 on: November 22, 2007, 08:09:02 PM »
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.”


having a m16 is usless to bombs, rockets, cannons, fighter jets, missles etc... even 100,000,000.

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13958
What is a Militia?
« Reply #65 on: November 22, 2007, 08:20:53 PM »
Why would the authors of the bill of rights be concerned for the "rights" of a group such as a millitia? It seems all the other rights are aimed at individuals since it's an individual that is a citizen of the country and that citizenship protections pertain to individuals, not some group of people.

It's not a group that has the right to speech, assemble, worship, drink etc. those are protections for individuals, not some ambiguous anonomous group of people. They are rights of and for the people as individuals.
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline Xargos

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4281
What is a Militia?
« Reply #66 on: November 22, 2007, 09:51:00 PM »
If you're an American over 18 you are Militia and you're suppose know how to use the weapons you own, if any.  Our Founding Fathers knew all forms of government become corrupt over time so they wrote the Second Amendment because they thought The PEOPLE might have to take their country back by force someday.

Socialist know the true meaning of the Second Amendment, that is the reason they fear it so much.  They do not want The PEOPLE to be able to defend themselves once they take complete control of our Government.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2007, 10:12:17 PM by Xargos »
Jeffery R."Xargos" Ward

"At least I have chicken." 
Member DFC

Offline bj229r

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6735
What is a Militia?
« Reply #67 on: November 22, 2007, 09:58:00 PM »
If sucking the brains out of a baby into a sink can be justified as 'privacy', then militia can mean anything gun-rights advocates damn well want it to mean:confused:
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers

http://www.flamewarriors.net/forum/

Offline Tigeress

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1260
What is a Militia?
« Reply #68 on: November 23, 2007, 06:25:26 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Maverick
Why would the authors of the bill of rights be concerned for the "rights" of a group such as a millitia? It seems all the other rights are aimed at individuals since it's an individual that is a citizen of the country and that citizenship protections pertain to individuals, not some group of people.

It's not a group that has the right to speech, assemble, worship, drink etc. those are protections for individuals, not some ambiguous anonomous group of people. They are rights of and for the people as individuals.


I am thinking... We The People and Militias of Each Of The 50 States are one in the same.

We The People, armed with our own guns, in the form of State Militias, are our own insurance policy against a US Federal Government gone Rabid.

The framers of the constitution were concerned for preservation of democracy, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of... We The People.

They knew governments get subverted by self-serving powerful politicians and military leaders and political parties.

Thus the framers provided a serious checks and balances mechanism as a constant and very serious Multi-State power that can be invoked to keep the US Federal Government on notice that it is not the only government in the USA; that the US Federal Government IS Accountable, by force if necessary, to  We The People.

The 50 State Governments and their Militias are both a Federal Government Pause to Think and a military force to regain control and set things to right again in the event of US Federal Government Subversion against the collective interests of  We The People.

Government Subverters come from both sides of the political spectrum... from the Left and from the Right. Neither the extremists on the Left nor the extremists on the Right have the moral high ground.

Extremists on both the Left and the Right sides are a threat to the collective interests of We The People.

Look what happened in Russia (USSR) and Germany (NAZI)... prime examples of the Left Extremism (Communism) and the Right Extremism (Fascism) subversion of governments for the sake of unrestrained power and control.

Government is not a benevolent harmless thing and must be held in check else it becomes a master and not a servant of... We The People.

This Is About:


It Is Not About "We The US Federal Government"

Thus, We The People Shall Keep and Bear Arms....

TIGERESS
« Last Edit: November 23, 2007, 08:05:07 AM by Tigeress »

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
What is a Militia?
« Reply #69 on: November 23, 2007, 09:56:23 AM »
bingalong..  you are again proving my point... none of the case sighted called for active enrollment in a militia nor did being in one become a condition of owning arms..

in miller you quoted..  "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. "

It is as I have said... they simply felt that no sawn off shotgun could be used as a miltitary arm.. they were not hearing on the 1934 restriction.. they were avoiding it.. One of the justices had a machine gun at home and asked the government.. "do you mean that me having it makes me a criminal?"   they said that it was never intended in such a way..

The SC.. dodged it... dodged the machine gun thing the ruled very narrowly that it was ok to take away the right to own a sawn off shotgun because it had no miltitary value.. this was wrong... every war before and since has used em.. we use em now in Iraq.   Mossberg 500's

and.. as for your contention that no army of 100,000,000 needs M16's???  what are you talking about?  our army is as we speak equiped each and every soldier with a the latest version of the M16  they also have various handguns...

I am sure they would get a kick out of your assesment that hand held firearms are no longer needed in todays warfare of rockets and bombs!

you were no serious were you?  

Now... let's quit pretending shall we?  you are no supporter of the second.  you are not being honest here... or.. you simply have no idea what firearms or armies are.   Which is the case?

Also.. I have asked you... what is your idea of a second amendment?   the one you "support"?  what guns would you allow me to have and carry on my person?

lazs

Offline WWhiskey

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3122
What is a Militia?
« Reply #70 on: November 23, 2007, 10:01:12 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bingolong

having a m16 is usless to bombs, rockets, cannons, fighter jets, missles etc... even 100,000,000.


 while that might be true the military is not the primary enforcer of law inside the U.S. it is local and federal police that will be the first to see a rebelion. and most still believe the military will stay out ,some even think it might join the people since it still comprised of citizens, not conscripts. the most likely event if the armies are used is a war amongts themselves and that wont happen if we surrender our rights before they have a chance to fight for us!
 by the people for the people! who are the people?
   if we are wrong do you want to live under that kind of rule? i would rather keep my guns and my freedom right up till they kill me, than to be ruled by them that would do so!
hope is not lost  patriots formed this country and they will form it again
or die trying
Flying since tour 71.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
What is a Militia?
« Reply #71 on: November 23, 2007, 10:06:02 AM »
but..  lets just take the supreme court cases you quoted since they are all that matters...  the lower courts can be and have been overturned.

" Among the counts against Cruikshank et. al, were charges to deprive two blacks of their First and Second Amendment rights. Regarding the First Amendment charges the court stated:

    The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government... It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution. The government of the United States when established found it in existence, with the obligation on the part of the States to afford it protection...

    The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National government alone...

    ...For their protection in its enjoyment, therefore, the people must look to the States. The power for that purpose was originally placed there, and it has never been surrendered to the United States.

Similarly regarding the Second Amendment violations the court wrote:

    The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called..."internal police."

In brief, following precedent, the court stated the Bill of Rights only applied as a limitation on the "National government." Individuals could not file charges against other citizens in federal court regarding violations of their constitutional rights. It was up to the states to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens when their rights were abridged by other citizens."

I would say that the only thing in question here is not the individual right... but.. who defends that right.   your example only proves that it is an individual right not to be infringed on by congress.

I think we have all seen tho that when states violate the constitution.. the feds do indeed step in.. as you have seen with civil rights and free speech cases.    I don't think you want civil right to revert to the states again now do you?   I know the court of today does not want to imply such.

lazs

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
What is a Militia?
« Reply #72 on: November 23, 2007, 10:08:43 AM »
Of course they reversed that bad decision a little latter realizing that the feds did have to prevent the states from taking away rights in....

" Presser v. People of Illinois (1886)

Herman Presser was found guilty of parading a group of armed men without authorization in the state of Illinois. The defendant claimed Illinois law violated provisions in the Constitution including the Second Amendment. The Court ruled the states have the power to control and regulate military bodies, including drilling and parading activities. The Court re-affirmed that the Second Amendment applied as a limitation only on the national government and commented no further about it. However the court in dicta (a side opinion which does not form part of the judgment for the purposes of precedent [stare decisis] ) wrote:

    It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government.

Thus, the Presser court expressed the opinion that the states were prohibited from disarming "all citizens capable of bearing arms" because it conflicted with the federal government's right ("prerogative") to a reserve military force and the militia powers granted to Congress by the Constitution ("general powers" refers to Article I, section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the Constitution)."

as you can see....

lazs

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
What is a Militia?
« Reply #73 on: November 23, 2007, 10:13:30 AM »
then of course there is the (to me) "able bodied" and citizen thing... can you give up your rights...sign them away and.. is insane or sociopath considered to be not "able bodied"  the court ruled on these things and I agree.

" Lewis v. U.S. (1980)

Title VII of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 forbids the possession of firearms by a convicted felon. Lewis, the petitioner, was convicted of a felony in a 1961 state court "for breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor". In 1977, in Virginia, Lewis was charged with receiving and possessing a firearm in violation of the above act. Lewis, claimed his latest conviction violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments because he had no counsel present during his 1961 trial.

The court upheld Lewis' conviction, holding:

    (a)...the fact that there are remedies available to a convicted felon - removal of the firearm disability by a qualifying pardon or the Secretary of the Treasury's consent, as specified in the Act, or a challenge to the prior conviction in an appropriate court proceeding - suggests that Congress intended that the defendant clear his status before obtaining a firearm, thereby fulfilling Congress' purpose to keep firearms away from persons classified as potentially irresponsible and dangerous.

    (b) The firearm regulatory scheme at issue here is consonant with the concept of equal protection embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, since Congress could rationally conclude that any felony conviction, even an allegedly invalid one, is a sufficient basis on which to prohibit the possession of a firearm. And use of an uncounseled felony conviction as the basis for imposing a civil firearms disability, enforceable by criminal sanction, is not inconsistent with Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109; United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443; and Loper v. Beto, 405 U.S. 473.

In a footnote the court stated:

    These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to [445 U.S. 55, 66] the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia").

Note, the Court restated the Miller court's focus on the type of firearm.

The Court also commented it was customary to deny convicted felons the right to vote, hold union office, or practice medicine. "

As you can see.. a convicted felon who had signed away not only his right to bear arms but to even vote!

again...  the court sidestepped the issue and ruled on a very narrow point.. that of felons/insane peoples rights.

lazs

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13382
What is a Militia?
« Reply #74 on: November 23, 2007, 10:14:26 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
I think we have all seen tho that when states violate the constitution.. the feds do indeed step in.. as you have seen with civil rights and free speech cases.    I don't think you want civil right to revert to the states again now do you?   I know the court of today does not want to imply such.

lazs


I hope you're not expecting consistency from the left. From those who think the ends justify any means consistency means nothing.
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.