Wisco
member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2013
- Messages
- 1,239
All we're interested in here is the militia as it's defined in the Constitution.
Or defined by laws made in pursuance of the Constitution.
All we're interested in here is the militia as it's defined in the Constitution.
The Texas State Guard is another candidate, although I don't know if they get federal funding for their weapons. I do believe they adhere to federal training doctrine insofar as their budgets allow. Ideologically, they're probably the closest thing to a constitutional militia in existence right now, seeing as how all their officers are in state, and they answer solely to the Texas government.
Would a Militia be a group of lawfully armed U.S. citizen protesting and resisting a precieved Government crime in progress??
Both the Federal gov and the States are limited as to what they can regulate according to their specific jurisdictions. Jurisdiction is territorial - except to the extent that it has been expanded extra-territorial to allow the Federal gov to extend reach in it's fake "war on drugs" - another subject. It can only only operate within State jurisdictions where jurisdiction is concurrent with the State(s), i.e. with their agreement, or where the State(s) have ceded jurisdiction. So as to the regulation of firearms within the territorial jurisdiction of the States, it was extended under the commerce clause to regulate sales - a false premise, but it stuck regardless. However, at least for now, the Federal gov can not regulate the private possession of firearms outside it's territorial jurisdictions.I know what the militia was when 2A was written. I think I have explained that. It was primarily made up of civilians for the purpose of a nat'l defense. No such animal today except a few who cling to the concept thinking that it is relevant to keep the gov't in check. Cliven Bundy and his group would qualify. The militia was a para military group by modern definition and needed as I referenced the war of 1812.
http://www.npr.org/2017/07/11/53669...or-4-defendants-in-cliven-bundy-standoff-case
To that end militias have no bearing on 2A today other than maybe as a defense in court.
I support RKBA. What I don't support is peoples insistence that state legislators and congress can't pass laws to regulate firearms based on 2A. To do that would mean that states and congress have no power to regulate anything and everything has to remain static according to the old testament which is what the BOR is in effect when compared to everything that has passed since the country was founded.
I think I understand what you mean, but it would have to be a pretty clear crime rising to the level of "tyrannical" for any assembled militia taking up arms against the government to be successful and not prosecuted later.
Also, whether organized or unorganized militia, all militia answers to the governor. And if they are organized militia, they can be federalized.
A armed group of men without a national or state commander is just a mob or military coup in waiting.
The strength of the militia as it was 200 years ago is that it was "unorganized" as we would now know it and would be more inclined to support their state than the federal government if there was a conflict between the two.
Once the frog is half boiled he or she does not know the difference between life and liberty - and tyranny.If there was a ''Like'' button, I'd push it.
Arms in the hands of citizens to resist Gov. tyranny is what its all about. Just exactly what that ''Tyranny'' is or could be, is a different debate, entirely
Or what congress says it is. ^^^ More relevant information.
Why can't the unorganized militia be the group that rallied around Cliven Bundy? They were pretty unorganized. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck.
Would a Militia be a group of lawfully armed U.S. citizen protesting and resisting a precieved Government crime in progress??
Quack, quack, quack, quack....
That's not quite so.The legality of the NFA is predicated on that very idea.
The Bundies were simply "the people" rising up against a tyrannical government.
According to various quotes from our founders, many of which have been posted here, everyone is part of the unorganized militia, so yes, they would count in that capacity. But the militia of the Constitution is strictly the organized militia. The Bundies were simply "the people" rising up against a tyrannical government.
Well look who's back. I thought this thread wasn't worth your time Mr. high and mighty.
To answer your question, it depends. They certainly wouldn't be a "well regulated" militia. In respect to the 2nd Amendment, they would simply be "the people."
Both the Federal gov and the States are limited as to what they can regulate according to their specific jurisdictions. Jurisdiction is territorial - except to the extent that it has been expanded extra-territorial to allow the Federal gov to extend reach in it's fake "war on drugs" - another subject. It can only only operate within State jurisdictions where jurisdiction is concurrent with the State(s), i.e. with their agreement, or where the State(s) have ceded jurisdiction. So as to the regulation of firearms within the territorial jurisdiction of the States, it was extended under the commerce clause to regulate sales - a false premise, but it stuck regardless. However, at least for now, the Federal gov can not regulate the private possession of firearms outside it's territorial jurisdictions.
NPR's story, in similar fashiion to their other Bolshevik News cronies, is false. Cliven Bundy, his family and supporters did not have an "armed standoff" with the little army of Feds also know as the BLM. A little research should put that straight. There were only a few of them that were armed at all, and mostly with holstered handguns carried openly. Besides, any and all citizens in this country between the ages of 18 and 45 are defacto part of the Unorganized Militia per the United States Code.
A better example would have been the Battle of Athens, Tennessee, 1946
http://www.csg.org/knowledgecenter/docs/National Guard Resolution.pdfSection 1076 of the John Warner Defense Authorization Act expanded the president’s authority to federalize the National Guard during certain emergencies and disasters. The president would be able to exercise such authority without a governor’s consent. Specifically, the president would be allowed to employ the Armed Forces and the National Guard to restore public order in certain situations, namely in times of “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident or other condition.” The president would be required to notify Congress within 14 days of exercising such authority. Section 1076, which was enacted in October 2006, as part of the Defense Authorization measure (Public Law 109-364) revised the Insurrection Act of 1807. The Insurrection Act empowered the president to use the U.S. military as a domestic police force when laws are not being enforced, or the rights of citizens are being denied due to insurrection, domestic violence or conspiracy.
The Bundy's were grazing their beef for free on federal land long after they stopped paying to do so and refused to stop. Their case is hardly a case of tyranny, but one of monetary self interest.
The Bundy's were grazing their beef for free on federal land long after they stopped paying to do so and refused to stop. Their case is hardly a case of tyranny, but one of monetary self interest.
Nothing high and mighty, I just dont find it worth an argument. The threads good, but you really deviate all over this subject, and no matter ow many times you repeat a lie, its still a lie.....and that holds back a real conversation .........Its your outright lies like ''But the militia of the Constitution is strictly the organized militia.'' You either havent read the 2nd amendment or your lying for argument. Thats lame as hell. You MUST know that the word ''Organized' simply does not exist in the wording of the 2nd Amendment.
As for the Bundy's, If the supporters were properly equipped and working in coordination, under a singular command, they were well regulated ......and They appeared so..... and yes, they were People. Quack Quack Quack Was it 'legal'...??.... May have been to them, but it wasnt to a Federal Judge......
Sooo, good luck, regardless, grandpajack.
I guess the feds didn't see it that way.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/bundy-supporter-sentenced-to-68-years-in-bunkerville-case/
The BLM is massively unconstitutional in the first place. The Constitution cites only a few specific instances where the federal government can own state land, and land management is not one of them. Furthermore, the federal government is prohibited from having an armed federal force operating outside of Washington DC. The BLM is an illegal federal standing army protecting illegal federal interests on state land. End of story.
What way? The Feds see it how I described it - Bundy was unlawfully grazing.
Or the Bonus Army march, or the Ludlow Massacre, or Waco, or Ruby Ridge or..........................A better example would have been the Battle of Athens, Tennessee, 1946
It's certainly not the "end of story"!
Standing armies aren't illegal. You keep saying they are. You're incorrect. Many of the Founders were wary of large standing armies, but they still have congress the power to raise armies gave congress the power of the purse to keep them or not.
Camfield v. United States (1897) ruled that the Congress can regulate access to public land, by preventing private landowners from placing fences limiting access to that land.
Constitutional law also includes the laws made in pursuance of the Constitution - it's not the just the Constitution and whatever YOU think it means, which, by the way, conflicts with almost every Supreme Court decision ever rendered.
TSG has no Combat Arms, it's functionally a Support force. The Left Hand tape reads "Texas State Guard" and not "US ARMY" as the TNG troops wear. There's litle or no training but what the individuals bring to TSG.
They do solely answer to the Governor. State law allows for some "activation" of them, but only in the event TNG is federalized and called up out of state.
So, they are and they aren't.
The Bundy's were grazing their beef for free on federal land long after they stopped paying to do so and refused to stop. Their case is hardly a case of tyranny, but one of monetary self interest.
The Bundy s had disputed "changes in the rules" from the 1990s which were calculated to drive all the ranchers off the land for Harry Reid's sweetheart deal with a Chinese company to use the land for something else. Cliven Bundy was one of the last holdouts.The Bundy's were grazing their beef for free on federal land long after they stopped paying to do so and refused to stop. Their case is hardly a case of tyranny, but one of monetary self interest.