DC Thwarted? Or did John Adams REALLY lose the right to arms?

[shield20]

DC Case Thwarted? Or did John Adams REALLY lose the right to arms?

Along with MOST other state and federal public officials?

Militia Act 1792: That the Vice-President of the United States, the Officers, judicial and executives, of the government of the United States; the members of both houses of Congress, and their respective officers; all custom house officers, with the clerks; all post officers, and stage-drivers who are employed in the care and conveyance of the mail of the post office of the United States; all Ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; all inspectors of exports; all pilots, all mariners actually employed in the sea service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; and all persons who now are or may be hereafter exempted by the laws of the respective states, shall be and are hereby exempted from militia duty,

Typical State: Virgina Militia Act 1785: That all free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years, except the members of the council of state, members of the American congress, judges of the superior courts, speakers of the two houses of assembly, treasurer, attorney-general, auditors and their clerks, solicitor-general and his clerks, clerks of the council of state, and treasury, register of the land-office, his deputy and clerks, custom-house officers, all inspectors of tobacco, all professors, and tutors at the University of William and Mary, and other public seminaries of learning, all ministers of the Gospel, licensed to preach according- to the rules of their sect, who shall have previously taken before the court of their county, an oath of fidelity to the commonwealth, post-masters, keepers of the public gaol and public hospital, millers, persons concerned at iron or lead works, or persons solely employed in repairing or manufacturing fire-arms, all of whom are exempted from the obligations of this act, shall be inrolled

DC Brief:

Instead, {the 2nd amendment} protects the possession and use of guns only in service of an organized militia.

So ALL these people lost the right to keep and bear arms the moment they took office??? Hmmmm...did they have to sell their arms at that time, and buy new ones once they left office and were eligible for Militia duty again?

YOU WOULD LOSE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS to become a public official?? Seems an awful lot to ask to give up a basic right in order to serve your country as a civil servant. All the sons of liberty who fought the revolution to throw off an oppressive govt did so just so they could lose THEIR rights, and deny that right to other civil servants, when they served the new republic outside the militia? And they did that intentionally via the 2nd amendment?

DC - What a crock!

 

[Ash]

If that is real, government employees are exempt from service, not barred. They don't have to serve because they are already providing an important service that would be interrupted by militia service. In other words, when the call goes out, those exempt folks don't have to show up. In other words, I don't know if it is directly related at all. Exempt does not mean barred.

Ash

 

[shield20]

Right, so if they didn't enroll, they had no right to keep and arms?

 

[unspellable]

Militia?

The militia has generally been defined as EXCLUDING any officer of the federal government. How ever I view the RKBA as a personal right independent of eligibility for the militia.

 

[shield20]

Of course you do, so do I, BUT DC says otherwise...THEY say, if "the militia has generally been defined as EXCLUDING any officer of the federal government", then that officer has NO right to keep and bear arms.

DC Brief: ARGUMENT I. THE SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTS ONLY MILITIA-RELATED FIREARM RIGHTS.

EDIT: Current federal exemptions VERY similiar to original exemptions, except back then STATE officials were typically exempt also...

Section 312. Militia duty: exemptions

(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
(1) The Vice President.
(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States,
the several States and Territories, and Puerto Rico.
(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on
active duty.
(4) Customhouse clerks.
(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission
of mail.
(6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards
of the United States.
(7) Pilots on navigable waters.
(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant
in, the United States.

(b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is
exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the
conscientious holding of that belief is established under such
regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person
is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be
noncombatant.

 

[FieroCDSP]

Wasn't there a penalty back then for refusing to serve if you were otherwise able? I seem to recall there was, buit I'm not sure. It would make sense in that context.

If the call went out, as an able-bodied citizen, you had to serve. Otherwise you'd be jailed or maybe even strung up? In that context, the exemptions make sense. These are people that keep the home-front and war machine running while the boys are in the ranks. Many of those occupations were essential to keeping an army healthy, moving, and supplied. To require that they serve in the rank and file, and likely be killed, would be shooting yourself in the foot.

Those exemptions represent common sense thinking regarding who should be required to serve, not who should be armed. Considering most houses back then had a gun for hunting and because they were the local militia, I don't think you can legitimately claim those people were supposed to be barred from owning a gun.

 

[shield20]

Yes, militia duty was mandatory - owning arms was YOUR DUTY as one "the people".

I don't think you can legitimately claim those people were supposed to be barred from owning a gun.

RIGHT!! It doesn't make sense!! The WHOLE "sophisticated collective" rights theory/lie about the 2nd (and a major portion of DC's case) is that it secures your right ONLY as part of a well regulated Militia - NO militia? NO right!

So again, according to DC, ALL these guys who were/are exempt from Militia duty had NO RKBA...it doesn't make sense!

 

[Mannix]

I don't think you can legitimately claim those people were supposed to be barred from owning a gun.

That's his point, that if the second amendment only protected a collective right reserved for the state militia, that those people would not have been eligible to own arms, which was obviously not the case. Of course they will just argue that that was "back then" and an armed populous outside of the militia context has since become a burden on the inner cities, and being that it is not protected, they can limit it all they want.

Of course, there is no evidence to show that their ban has done anything to curb crime, in fact, comparing the rate of crime in the US to the crime rate in D.C. since the ban shows that crime went up in the former and down in the latter. Correlation does not mean causation, of course, so they will just say that it would have been even worse without the ban.

When we get to the end of this argument we will win. I have confidence that SCOTUS will rule in our favor though only because they have to. I don't think we'll be seeing the repeal/overturn of the GCA, NFA, Gun Owner Protection Act of '86 or the Lautenberg amendment anytime soon. We've had our rights eroded over the course of 70 years, and I just don't see it going back to 1933 overnight.

 

[rdhood]

It doesn't say they are exempt from the militia... just militia duty

shall be and are hereby exempted from militia duty,

Section 312. Militia duty: exemptions

 

[shield20]

M.A 1792...who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,

(sorry - I didn't include this part)

Virginia: That all free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years, except {exemptions} shall be inrolled ..

The exemptions deal with who must be enrolled, not just duty.

And besides...

DC Brief: Second, despite the contemporaneous evidence of what the Framers understood a “well regulated Militia” to be, the majority below implausibly asserted that a well-regulated militia can consist of people who are merely “subject to organization by the states (as distinct from actually organized).” PA33a. Everyone is potentially subject to organization, but an unorganized group is not regulated at all, let alone well-regulated. Under the majority’s understanding, even those who refused to appear for muster would still be part of a well-regulated militia. That is not how the words were understood.

DC says you MUST be actively part of the Militia, NOT just "subject to organization" i.e. even IF you were enrolled, BUT DID NOT TRAIN, you still had/have NO RKBA. (Which of course IS their goal - to limit RKBA to the Guard and not the "unorgainized militia".)

This is ALL in tension, because the idea that it was the intent of the framers that civil servants lose basic rights simply because they are exempt from service in the militia is absurd.

 

[Old Fuff]

I am sure the founding fathers intended that the right of the people to have arms means individuals, and as such, everyone. However the anti's want us to belive that:

Only the members of a recognized militia can have arms, and ...

Today that militia is the National Guard, and nothing else.

They may box themselves into a trap, because in fact Federal law establishes the "unorganized militia," which consists of ALL male citizens or individuals intending to become citizens, between the ages of 17 through 45 - except for those not specifically exempted, or who are members of a National Guard.

I look forward to the day a 17 year-old walks into a gun store in California and buys an AR-15 (or whatever) while the anti's swoon...

 

[mdao]

You're missing a very important point. Their argument is that the 2nd Amendment only protects the right to keep and bear arms in the service of a militia and that keeping and bearing arms in any other setting is subject to government regulation.

Under this interpretation, the founding fathers and anyone not involved with the militia could still keep and bear arms because the government of the time allowed them to.

 

[shield20]

could still keep and bear arms because the government of the time allowed them to.

Does THAT sound like something the framers would go for? To secure a natural right for only a very select group of the people (and explicitly not themselves). That notion seems QUITE absurd (which it is...we all know that).


Note: I should have used "secure(d)" more then "lost/lose" when referring to the right.

 

[RP88]

sounds to me like someone in SC twisted and threw their stupid current argument back into their (the officials') own faces.

 

[BobbyQuickdraw]

As far as I'm concerned, the 2nd Amendment has little to do with the militia, and everything to do with arming The People.

 

[TEDDY]

militia

the National Guard is not the militia and never was.in 1934 it was made a component of the army reserve.there still are state militias.and the unorganized militia.the gov supplies the Guard with equipment but the militia supplies its own.so how can the militia supply its own if they are disarmed.maybe this is why schools no longer teach civics.or the constitution,to dumb down the people.see posts above.if you were taught civics and history you would not have this discusstion.no reflection on you but on the schools. ---- ---- --- ----

 

[unspellable]

The National Guard

Some time back there was a lengthy discussion on one of these forums over whether or not the National Gaurd was an organized militia. If it truely is part of the US Army reserve then it is clearly NOT an organized milita since by defintion, the militia EXCLUDES all officers or agents of the Federal Government. It's logical that it should exclude them since it was intended to be a check on the Federal Government. Sort of blows the anti's collective argument out of the water if the National Guard is NOT the militia.

My own personal position is that the National Guard is not part of the militia. In part this is inherent in the very name since the militia are supposed to be at the state level.

My father was in the uniformed Michigan State Militia in WWII which clearly was an organized militia, and was clearly not part of the National Guard, demonstrating that the organized militia of the Civil War era survived at least up until WWII. It was under the command of the Michigan State Police which were originally organized as a para-military organization.

My father was at the WWII Detroit riots as part of the militia. I'll name no names, but while doing so he several times helped carry a drunk back to the barracks who later became the judge in our home county.

 

[shield20]

Teddy,

At the extent we ARE discussing the militia, we are paraphrasing DC's & anti contentions - NOT ours.

We know the National Guard is not the constitutional Militia of the several States, it is a new militia of the UNITED STATES. We know it is a federal entity, created, funded and armed by the feds, and is part of the standing army, all quite opposite the intent of the Constitution. And Congress had NO power to redefine and replace the constitutional militias that were deemed permanent & necessary.


What we are talking about here is the current anti & DC argument that the intent of the 2nd was ONLY to protect the right of individuals serving in the militia of the several States. I hoped to show how (again) this is an absurd argument because it does not make sense that the framers and the state legislations who ratifed the BoR would ONLY secure that right for a VERY select group of the people, while leaving THEIR OWN right, and the right of most other civil servants (and anyone not aged 18-44) unsecured and subject to federal and state regulations.

 

[GRIZ22]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is one issue. The militia is a totally diffrent issue. Don't confuse the two. You shouldn't mix the two as you are then supporting anti-gun propaganda.

 

[shield20]

Not really, as they ARE part of the same amendment...you can just NOT ignore the declarative phrase - it IS there. There should be NO confusion that a primary reason for securing the right was the importance of the Militia. To deny this is foolhardy - and just plain silly.

True, my right does NOT rely on my role in the Militia, but my role in the Militia role DOES say why I have rights to "all the terrible implements of war", and there is no more "compelling govt interest" then protecting that role. (the militia is too vital to our freedoms)

 

[One of Many]

Most people do not understand that the second amendment clause referring to the Militia, is an appositive statement, that clarifies the meaning of "the People" whose right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. It does not restrict the right to only members of the Militia, it DECLARES that all of "the People" are members of the Militia, and are necessarily armed for the security of a free State (a condition, not a political organization).

 

[shield20]

"a free State" is a free 'governmental unit'. (started as "a free country" - changed in the house to "a free State")

If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed Federalist #29

This {constitution} forms us into one State as to certain objects and gives us a legislative and executive body for these objects. Jefferson to Madison 1789

the meaning of "The people" is clear - the people of the United States.

We the People of the United States

NOT all the people were members of the militia - only those able-bodied males between certain ages - eventually 18-44, and typically only those not in civil servant roles...

but ALL the people had/have the right to keep and bear arms.

The militia phrase is a keen observation that says that a(the) militia(of the several states) is necessary (in lieu of a large standing army) for freedom, and is given as A reason why the right is secured.

 

[thexrayboy]

Interesting point...and well put. If you are exempted from militia duty and do not serve than according to the collective rights advocates you have no need nor right to own arms. But then most able bodied adults in America are eligible to be included in the militia and those same collectivists still say we have no need or right to own arms.

It would appear that facts, history and precedent really have no bearing on the position taken nor the arguments against arms that are put forth as gospel by the antis.

In reality their position has no founding in fact, history or logic. This is convenient for them as we who support the 2nd must use facts and rationale to form our position. They on the other hand can fabricate any and every argument that pops into their shallow minds or that they can magically prestedigitate from some bodily orofice and use it as justification for their agenda.

 

[One of Many]

The term "a free State" does not make sense if State is meant to be a political entity, and it is to be secured solely from internal conflict. State, Nation, and Country, have distinct meanings in a political sense, and it is presumed that the founders of the political organization we refer to as the United States of America knew and understood the difference in meaning of each word.

A State is a sovereign government (a political entity), where a Nation is referring to a cohesive group of people that may not be sovereign (such as the various Indian Nations within the USA), and the Country is referring to a geographical region, that may include more than one Nation, and be under the control of a State or States.

Since a State as a political organization is the sovereign political power that controls the legal functions of society, there can be no such thing as a "free State" in the Federal sense, as it can not be considered to be a non-free State unless it has been made subordinate to some other State by means of military conquest or negotiated settlement. As for each State (such as Michigan or Indiana, etc.) these are subordinate in some way to the Federal State, but independent in other ways from the Federal State. Can we say that the State of Michigan is a free State?

The reference to "a free State" makes no sense in any political context as far as the second amendment to the US Constitution is concerned. The only way the statement makes any sense is for the phrase "a free State" to be referring to a condition of freedom from governmental tyranny and oppression that is guaranteed to the people by their right to defend themselves with personally owned, possessed and carried arms of military usefulness. That freedom from governmental tyranny would apply to both external and internal political States.

Since at the time of the creation of the US Constitution, there was no Federal law specifying the membership of the "well regulated Militia", and it was commonly held that all of the people constituted the Militia, it makes sense that the Second Amendment declares that "the People" are the Militia, and that they shall not have their right to "keep and bear arms" infringed by the Federal Government.

The Federal Militia Act occurred after the fact as far as the writing of the US Constitution, and it stated that certain persons would be subject to being called into service (while others were exempted) as part of the "well regulated" Militia. That does not preclude persons outside of that class of called persons, from being part of the unorganized militia. It would make no sense from any military point of view, to force lame and crippled persons, or those enfeebled by old age, into a military company that would not be able to fight because of the hindrance of physical impediments.

The ONLY way that the phrase "a free State" in the Second Amendment, could refer to a political organization (the Federal government of the USA), is for the term Militia to apply in the limited sense of the Military force used solely to protect the Federal government from Military conquest by opposing political States. For the Federal government to fall due to internal opposition of a non-military nature, would be an operation of freedom in action, and the Second Amendment is about ensuring that freedom.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America has been understood by the people to be a statement protective of individual rights, since the very beginning of the Federal government. The individual right, and the collective right, are mutually exclusive concepts. The collective protects the government, while the individual protects the people and their state (condition) of being free from tyranny. The federal government does not protect the people from tyranny; in some cases the people are subject to tyranny at the hands of the Federal government (enforcement of laws, and resolution of conflicts between civil litigants).

If we try to say that the "free State" referenced in the Second Amendment is the political entity of the Federal government, we have lost the battle for individual rights in the SCOTUS, and in the minds of the public as confused by the leftist-socialist main stream media.

 

[GRIZ22]

Not really, as they ARE part of the same amendment...you can just NOT ignore the declarative phrase - it IS there.

Being in the same amendment doesn't mean that everything in the amendment relies on everything else listed there.

Freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly are separate freedoms and do not rely on one another.

I don't ignore the right of the people to have a militia but it doesn't have anything to do with keeping and bearing arms as the appeals court ruled in the DC case now before the SCOTUS.

If you insist the RKBA is reliant on militia service then you're saying you should turn your guns in at age 45.