Replies

Infringers don't care. Old white guys. A long time ago. Didn't include ARs. Blah, blah, blah. I can hear the screaching now. As far as "free" able bodied white male---- Well, #1. Nobody is free any longer. Slave to the thirsty tax man. #2. "White male citizens". You know the infringers will just use that as another wedge to cause further divisiveness.

"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."

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?

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.

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.