Posted on 06/16/2016 8:13:52 AM PDT by dware
National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed by elements of a para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.
Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement. Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group's organizers as criminals, issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government's efforts to secure law and order. The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed widespread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.
Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.
One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily. Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition.
However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government's plans. During a tense standoff in Lexington's town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists. Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.
Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the radical extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces over matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.
Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops.
Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as "ringleaders" of the extremist faction, remain at large.
And this, people, is how the American Revolution began on April 19, 1775.
( by Ed Schriber Col. USMC (Ret.)
When the BOR was written the word "regulated" was taken to mean "trained" so that as Jefferson said and I paraphrase, the nation be trained up in the use of arms.
Fire arms handling and training in their use should be part of the public school curriculum at least from grades 4-12.
When people are familiar with tools they no longer can be fooled into fearing them.
Word: Waco
The Miller case stands for the proposition that in order to be protected by the 2nd amendment ...
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. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
In short, the Miller case applies 2nd amendment support to military weapons.
Scalia "rewrote" the Miller case in Heller. It was a radical revision to judicial precedent, a complete reversal.
The deliberate misconstrucion of the Presser case, for decades, is astounding. The federal courts uniformly applied the Presser case for the OPPOSITE of what it expressly says. Presser was used to justify upholding state and local laws that forbid possession of and carrying of firearms.
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 [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. But as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration [parade permit laws] do not have this effect.
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
The federal courts totally overlook this principle when citing Presser. Some courts cite Presser and claim it says the opposite of what it actually says!
Presser stands for the proposition that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, whatever else its nature, is a right only against the federal government, not against the States. The courts are uniform in this interpretation. See, e.g., Thomas, 730 F.2d at 42 (1st Cir.); Peoples Rights Org., 152 F.3d at 538-39 n. 18 (6th Cir.); Quilici, 695 F.2d at 269 (7th Cir.); Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club, 965 F.2d at 730-31 (9th Cir.). Just as Presser had no federal constitutional right "to keep and bear arms" with which to challenge Illinois's license requirement, Bach has none to assert against New York's regulatory scheme. Under Presser, the right to keep and bear arms is not a limitation on the power of States. ...Accordingly, we hold that the "right to keep and bear arms" does not apply against the States and affirm the district court's dismissal of Bach's Second Amendment claim.
Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2005)
Note well, this is an illustration of the integrity and honesty of the courts.
Tried to post this article to Facebook and got a notice the content was blocked.
There's a surprise.
This would be a great FReepathon post for 7/4/16!
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.