Posted on 06/03/2019 6:39:23 AM PDT by rktman
The early U.S. Congress wanted every “free able-bodied white male citizen” between the ages of 18 and 45 to be an armed member of a militia, reports Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.
The historical perspective amid a progressive effort to restrict and even confiscate guns comes from T.J. Martinelli, an author and reporter in Washington state, who wrote about Congress and guns at the Tenth Amendment Center website.
He points out that it was 227 years ago this month that Congress adopted the Militia Acts of 1792.
The pair of statutes allowed the president to lead state militias in time of war and conscript men to fight “with self-provided arms and munitions.”
“To a modern American living in the midst of an empire with a permanent military presence both here and abroad, there might be little reason to acknowledge this anniversary. However, it offers an example of how the founders believed military defense and war should be handled, and why so many modern arguments against civilian gun ownership don’t match the history,” Martinelli wrote.
The first statute allowed the president to call up militia members “whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe.” The second gave authority to call all men to join.
But, now, “overlords” claim that the Founders “never intended for private citizens to have military weapons.” Such claims, however, never cite a foundation.
The unfounded arguments are “used to justify gun control policies that restrict our right to keep and bear arms as described in the Second Amendment,” Martinelli explained.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I’d have to pull a book....but I believe this call to arms occurred much earlier than 1792.
Yes. The 1792 was for the Militia Act.
I believe the 1792 Militia Act was an update.
Are these laws still on the books? I so, this is perfect. Millions will answer if the President calls.
What the Pre-Civil War state courts thought of the 2nd amendment...from the highly suppressed Senate Report of 1982...
https://guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html
19. * Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846).
“’The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.”
“or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe”
And we are currently being invaded from the South by a foreign nation.
What would the President be within his rights to do?
Call up the militia and send them to the border.
In order to secure our liberty, the United States formed an Army and a Navy, and employed the Militia of the several states to convince Great Britain that we were quite serious about Independence. But, when the war ended, we disbanded the Army and the Navy and the Militia continued to exist largely on paper, only in the States. This proved to be a big mistake and we reconstituted the Army and the Navy and returned to our tradition of Militia service. There was an argument over the better scheme, a Regular Army or Citizen Soldiers, the Militia. Following the great American political tradition, we did both.
Among the arguments in favor of the Militia was the need to guard against an overreaching Federal Government, to suppress insurrections, and to control the frontiers. An Armed Citizen Militia provided some insurance against these threats to our hard fought liberty. Revisionist historians have worked to convince Americans that Militia was intended to be solely armed, equipped, controlled, and employed by the Federal Government. That describes the Regular Army, and, in fact, we have always insisted on limits on the Regular Army and rely, in part, on the Armed Citizen.
We believe in divided powers within the branches of the Federal Government and among our Federal Republic. Militia has always been a part of that insistence in diffused political and military power.
.
The text of the second amendment protects “The People,” not any “militia.”
A thought exercise for discussion:
A constitutional amendment that reads:
No state or jurisdiction subject to the laws of Congress shall pass any legislation to govern, restrict, register or control a US citizen’s rights regarding the purchases, possession, carry, storage, or transportation of firearms, firearm accessories, ammunition or attachments; that is more restrictive than the laws of Congress.
All laws passed by Congress related to firearms shall apply equally to all jurisdictions. All laws passed by Congress shall apply equally to law enforcement and citizens. The age of majority and voting shall be the same as the age of purchase of firearms. Any individual who is prohibited from purchasing a firearm is also prohibited from voting in federal elections.
Thanks rktman.
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.