Posted on 06/22/2014 8:21:46 PM PDT by DBCJR
The reserve militia[3] are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia. Former members of the armed forces are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code
State Militias a. k. a. State Defense Forces have already been formed in 23 states and Puerto Rico (Click here)
A couple of examples are Virginia:
http://www.virginiacitizenmilitia.org/
And Arizona:
The Dick Act spells out the various forms in which the militia manifests itself. Basically all able-bodied males are automatically in the militia, even the looniest left coast fruitcakes.
Of course there's confusion.
The Supreme Court can never be the final word, if a subsequent Court can nullify previous "final words."
The SC cannot claim final infallibility about anything.
"Clearly ruled" is in the same category as "depends on what the definition of 'is' is..." ' is...
And I always thought it meant "trained" and practiced to the point of competence and effectiveness for the purpose of civilian and personal defense; as opposed to a trained standing army.
Many, if not most, states already have Such a legally defined status, called the “unorganized Militia” in Maryland. MD does not keep a list, ‘tho’; that would be called an “Enrolled Militia”, and there hasn’t been one here since the Civil War.
Alas, membership in the militia, unorganized or organized (MDARNG, MDANG, MDNaval Militia, or MDDF) does not confer any
exemption to Maryland’s onerous anti-gun laws.
But I agree, creation of an enrolled militia force, with full exemption from ‘Gun-control Laws’, including the 1937 NFA, the 1969 GCA, and so on, would be a good thing for the Country, which is why we shall never see it.
Oh good. Another *database* in which to be included.
What could possibly go wrong?
agreed - who is behind this? really? and are they using this to collect info on gun owners so target them for something? like confiscation and/or roundup?
IMHO you don’t want your name on any central or distributed list of gun owners.
There is an interesting twist to the constitution. In past, the SCOTUS has found that congress is superior to state legislatures, and that federal judges are superior to state judges. But it has never found that the POTUS is superior to state governors.
This means, that when the POTUS and a governor are in contention, the only way the POTUS can enforce his will is with military force of arms. The last time this happened was when Bill Clinton’s mentor, governor Orval Faubus of Arkansas, rejected integration of Little Rock High School, and Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne to force it.
W. Bush refused to do so just when faced with inaction by the governor of Louisiana, after hurricane Katrina. Bush wanted to send in FEMA, but the governor refused to allow it.
The independence of governors also devolves somewhat to county Sheriffs, depending on the state. In many states, the governor cannot force compliance by Sheriffs. Yet at the same time, the governor acts as a buffer against direct action by the POTUS against Sheriffs.
A great example of this is the inability of Obama to force compliance from Joe Arpaio. The worst he has been able to do is to order Holder to investigate Arpaio over alleged civil rights abuses, though Obama would like nothing better than to arrest Arpaio and throw him into a federal prison for the rest of his life.
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
It would via the 2nd Amendment.
I think you missed the point, “about clearing up confusion about interpreting the 2nd amendment”. You and I know what the 2nd Amendment says. This makes it pain to everyone.
I think you missed the point, “about clearing up confusion about interpreting the 2nd amendment”. You and I know what the 2nd Amendment says. This makes it pain to everyone.
It has to involve a state-defined militia that automatically triggers the 2nd Amendment.
That is where the confusion exists, to put it politely.
Apparently Democrats did not get the memo.
Wasn’t trying to be contentious.
Was just my quick response and looks like a few others saw it the same way.
we’ve been this road before and your 10 year old or 65 year old won’t be in a militia.
The original militia called to arms on The Green at Concord were comprised of farmers, frontiers men and other types.
when the regulars meet the militia on the green, to disarm them, they had enough sense to range the militia by 400 yrds, the outermost of effectiveness for Kentucky & Pennsylvania rifles.
The regulars Knew better than to engage closer, as their arms were, at best, effective to a mere 50 yards.
You know the story but, when that skirmish over most those guys went home and that fight was over.
But, for the Red Coats, it was “Game On” or war, to put down the rebellion.
once they had lost more men than they were sending over, the British sued for peace.
I guess to bide time, as they marched again in 1812.
Once again, the farmer, the frontiersman and sport shooters rained down on the British.
yeah, good for us. They wore red twice making them easy targets but, even during the Civil/Great War our best sharpshooters came from the private sector.
much like today, when I go to the range, by far the worst shooters are cops.
I sometimes wonder if they are just acting stupid . There’s enough you charge them with conspiracy.
There was a town in the 1920’s, Texas I believe, where the sheriff and his deputized henchmen were running a town for their own nefarious enterprise.
One day the town showed up armed to the teeth. They arrested the Sheriff and his chump deputies, tossed em the town jail and eventually charged them with various crimes.
after it was done, they elected a new sheriff and went home.
the point is, the power and rights are spelled out in the Constitution. They are personal and unalienable.
if the requirement to impair prosecution, was membership in an armed service, it would be impaired for failure to serve.
Yes but adding another step to the process is dangerous. It is fine the way it is.
I didn’t miss the point.
It doesn’t work under federal or state’s rights to require me to sign up while a California resident, to a Texas militia to protect my Federal Constitutional rights or in some places, federal and state Consitutional rights. It’s not what the 2nd amendment is about.
We’re free to resist tyranny wherever we live - without any restriction.
“There was a town in the 1920’s, Texas I believe, “
Battle of Athens, Tennessee, 1946, returning war vets.
Show me where in the 2nd amendment that is says the militia has to be operated. Here is a clue - it ain’t in there. And for good reason.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.