Replies

Judge Reinhardt then goes on to cite footnote 8 in Lewis v. United States, which states that "[T]he Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.'"

Methinks the Judge knoweth not where this line of reasoning might end. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that a citizen militia might have need for recourse to such offensive items as machine guns, rotary gatling guns, artillery pieces, tanks, mortars, explosives, and other and sundry armaments. And also rockets for attachment to private planes, perhaps depth charges, (the better to outfit your man-o'-war), and anti-personnel mines, grenades, bazookas, and other useful items.

I think a complete list of armaments needed by a citizen militia may be made by looking over the lists of armaments used by ordinary citizens who have banded together to defend their country in various wars. E.g. the War for Independence, the Russian and Yugoslav Partisans in WWII, the Katanga and Biafra Wars, etc. If these folks had been limited to pistols and rifles, they'd have been swept away in an instant.

Our War for Independence did not start over a Birtish resolve to confiscate long arms at Concord, but the artillery pieces the Colonials were storing there.

Judge Reinhardt has now opened the way for us to again own all these things legally in our private collections as part of the unorganized milita.

The Constitution body also speaks to a private right to bearing arms -- big arms.

Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water." A "reprisal" means an action taken in return for some injury. A reprisal could be a seizing of property or guilty persons in retaliation for an attack and injury. It could include force used against the perpetrators for the redress of grievances. A reprisal could even involve killing ...
"Marque" is related to "marching" and means crossing or marching across a border in order to do a reprisal. So a Letter of Marque and Reprisal would authorize a private person, not in the U.S. armed forces, to conduct reprisal operations outside the borders of the U.S.A. Such Letters are grantable not just by the U.S. Constitution, but also by international law, which is why it was able to be included in the Constitution. The Letters are grantable whenever the citizens or subjects of one country are injured by those in another country and justice is denied by the government of that country, ...
The Founders of the U.S. Constitution included Marque and Reprisal in addition to authorizing Congress to declare war, so that in some cases, the U.S. government would not have to engage the military and have a costly war. The risk would then be concentrated on those who chose to engage in the reprisal. This empowers private citizens to protect themselves and other Americans.

Note that the Letters of Marque and Reprisal clause shows *clearly* that the Founders where familiar and comfortable with highly effective private arms -- the equal of the regular army and navy arms. They even found employment of such private armed forces a desirable thing by so providing for it.

In fact -- by order of the things as written in the Constitution, and order may be important to understanding -- the provision for use of private armed forces precedes the establishment of a regular army and navy!