Militia Raid

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Jeff White, since you're a moderator I'm not sure who to report you to, but you are willfully spreading information which is clearly untrue, and I request that you correct that behaviour.

Jeff White's information is absolutely true and not only represents the point of view at the time the Constitution was formed; but the current view as well. About all I would add to his comment is that the militia was meant to be formed by the state governments to act as a check on the federal government (though under the version the Founders envisioned, it could be mobilized by the Federal government in an emergency). This is one place where the modern version has deviated. Few states maintain their own separate militias anymore... the National Guard is just that - national and federal.

However, the overall point that a militia was something more than a band of self-selected armed men is absolutely correct. 40 guys who decide to buy guns and play army is not what the founders had in mind when they envisioned a militia. The whole idea behind a militia is that it represents democracy - it is supported by the community that forms it. Pretty clearly that is not the case in this example.

Those who argue that they can call themselves a militia just because they bought a bunch of guns and web gear are reading both history and the Constitution selectively.

 

[Thin Black Line]

The whole idea behind a militia is that it represents democracy - it is supported by the community that forms it.

+1. This is not only true in the defense against outside aggressors, but was
also meant for internal crime control, ie, inside the village. They were the
original Sheriff Reserve.....

 

[Byron Quick]

FM2Wildcat,

Why can't you own a F4? Please cite the statutes. The government may choose not to sell one but there are wealthy private citizens in the US who own MiGs.

There are statutes regulating the weaponry of these platforms. But, get the paperwork in order and you can own an F4 with 'all the bells and whistles.'

I'm assuming the cannon you mention is a breechloading artillery piece. Once again, the NFA of 1934 does allow the ownership of these weapons with the appropriate licensing. Of course, many of the rounds-depending upon type-will have a $200 transfer tax upon each single round. Which would get rather expensive for plinking.

As far as need goes...what does need have to do with it?

I could cover all of my 'needs' with five firearms. Seeing as I've got over ten times that many firearms, I entered the realm of wants long ago.

If I lived out in west Texas and had the money to do so, a cannon would be just the thing for a relaxing afternoon of plinking. The F4 would be cool, too. Twenty thousand acres of land and my own bombing range. Muzzle loading cannon with canister for primitive season deer hunting. The possibilities are endless and vastly entertaining.

 

[Thin Black Line]

This is a good book that puts military service, militia, and RKBA into historical
perspective:

http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Draft-Military-Selective-Service/dp/0891418954/

 

[hso]

Byron and FM2Wildcat,

There are guys in this country that legally own every one of the the things FM2Wildcat wonders why he can't own. It's just a question of being able to pay for them. The tanks and aircraft have their weapons removed unless the owner wants to go to the trouble of getting the ATF approval and tax paid for them.

I personally know a fellow with a Centurion tank. He's got a transferrable 1919 on it (even though he'd rather have the "authentic" MG that was removed in the UK) and he tears around his "ranch" with it and shoots up junk cars before running over them.

There's a guy in the Keys that owns a Mig and a Navy F4. He takes folks up for rides for $100. His ability to zip out to international airspace where he can try to make the "client" puke is part of the fun.

Cannon? I know a fellow here that has an old 4.5 inch howitzer from WWI. He has it on his farm and fires it every 4th of July and New Years. He loads it with marker rounds or blanks he makes himself (talk about reloading!!!). Black powder "cannon" aren't even regulated and there are folks that are Revolutionary War and Civil War reenactors that drag their artillery to various events.

The US government will let you have a lot of things that people know you can't have. Things like machine guns and artillery are regulated. Old fighter jets, tanks, PT boats are not.

 

[buzz_knox]

The Second Amendment clearly does not protect things like Stinger missiles and such weapons.

There. We have two conflicting opinions. How shall we prove which is correct?

K

Under the actual ruling of US v. Miller, you are wrong. Those arms which are suitable for use by military personnel and can be borne by said personnel are protected by the Constitution. That's also consistent with the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, which was to guarantee the right of the people to such arms that the national gov't could not exceed the limits placed on it by the Constitution.

And since I haven't seen this dealt with (although I may have just glossed over it):

(2) There is nothing in the Constitution to forbid an individual from having consensual sex with your 12 y.o. daughter or granddaughter. Is it proper for an individual have the right to decide for himself that such age-of-consent laws are unconstitutional?

By a strict reading of the Constitution, such a law issued by the national gov't would be unconstitutional, unless enacted to cover federal property. The national gov't has no police powers beyond that property.

The writers of the Constitution did not want the national gov't using the police power because of the tendence for abuse and suppression that comes with said power. The general police power was reserved to the states via the absence of a grant of such power to the national gov't, and the 10th Amendment. The police power was reserved to the states because the people of the individual states had far more control and influence over the state gov't than the national gov't and could mold the criminal law to fit their culture. So, while the national gov't can't regulate who has sex with whom, the state gov'ts were free to do so within the limits of their individual constitutions.

 

[buzz_knox]

The US government will let you have a lot of things that people know you can't have. Things like machine guns and artillery are regulated. Old fighter jets, tanks, PT boats are not.

There's another guy in Knoxville who has a Chieftain MBT.

And Dillon of Dillon Precision has a small air force of jet fighters, some of which are equipped with live weapons.

 

[CornCod]

I think people have a right to form armed groups, just so long as they are not conspiring to violate any legitimate laws. I think that private citizens who are neither convicted felons or aliens should be able to possess machine-guns and light artillery.

Now, having said that, I think that IF that fellow had a cannon or machine guns, he was a very foolish man. If someone wants to create a private militia they should stay within the laws as currently written. A proper mix of semi-auto military rifles and shotguns would be fine to have if a (God forbid) civil war situation should take place over the actions of a repressive government.

 

[hso]

Thanks for the correction, buzz_knox. John has a Chieftain instead of a Centurion. My mistake. :banghead:

I forgot about Dillon's flying mini Air Force museum.

 

[gc70]

The Second Amendment clearly does not protect things like Stinger missiles and such weapons.

The folks who wrote the Second Amendment had a lot broader definition of "arms" than many people today.

Consider the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 11:

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

Letters of marque allow privately-owned armed ships to legally participate in a war. The Continental Congress issued about 800 letters of marque during the Revolutionary War. The whole concept of letters of marque would be useless if the writers of the Constitution had not expected private citizens to own armed ships.

There it is, Constitutional recognition of private ownership of crew-served, top-of-the-line weaponry.

 

[Sharps-shooter]

Concerning the need for a cannon-- I don't need any guns. Not at the moment. I have hunted everything from caribou and whitetail to squirrels and birds, whithout a gun. There's also a grocery store near my house, where I can buy meat, if necessary. It's been a long time since I was attacked or mugged, and when I was I didn't have a gun with me-- things worked out just fine. It is, however, quite possible to imagine situations where a gun might be life-saving or very convenient to have. Depending on the situation, maybe even a big one. In 1995, I stayed with a family in a former soviet country, who had an anit-aircraft gun on a turret in their family compound. In 1985, that same family had lived in a very structured, tightly ruled, very affluent suburban neighborhood, much like what I live in now, I think, and nobody really foresaw the need to ever own a gun. As far as they knew, the USSR was going to last forever. But things changed, and they changed fast, and they changed utterly.

As for what the founders and authors of the constitution intended, we can never be sure, can we? But from the other things they wrote, and the fact that they had just used modern military-style arms to overthrow the government, one can reasonably deduce that they meant for citizens to have access to modern military-style arms comparable to those that might be used in a war. After all, the second ammendment doesn't even /mention/ deer hunting, in spite of the fact that people often draw distinctions between hunting and military style arms when discussing rkba.

 

[October]

Do you even read the stuff you write, Don’t Tread on Me? For example:

Don’t Tread on me wrote:

In fact, many questioned why it should even be written into the bill of rights because it is so obvious. Example, it would be like a new constitution writing in the "right to drive" when everyone automatically accepts that as a standard part of life.

You think there is a “right to drive”? Were you aware that states issue driver’s licenses granting people the privilege to drive? And that states can take those licenses and privileges away from an individual? Compare that with the right to free speech. The government cannot take away free speech from individuals, because it is a right. See the difference?

And this one…

Don’t Tread on me wrote:

Why? Because GOOD MEN get their militia together and shoot the stinking scum of society. That's why.

Not politically correct? Too bad. I guess Jefferson and all the men of that day were not PC.

So, if I and the GOOD MEN of my militia decide that you are one of the stinking scum of the earth, you’re OK with us shooting you? Do you see any benefit to a society following the rule of law as opposed to your method?

 

[Tim L]

I need to speak up about one thing concerning Modern Jet combat aircraft. there is only 1 civilian owned F-4 and it took a special act of congress for them to get it. see website here http://www.collingsfoundation.org/tx_f-4dphantom.htm from Collings website

Five years ago, foreign warbird jets were starting to emerge as the powerful force in the future of vintage aviation. However, major legal obstacles were encountered when individuals made efforts to acquire non-demiled (demiled combat jets are not flight-worthy) US-built combat jets in America or from abroad. Despite these obstacles, the Collings Foundation decided that it was going to try to acquire and restore a Phantom for flight exhibition. Accordingly, it took an act of Congress by means of an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill of 1999 to allow the Collings Foundation to acquire its F-4 Phantom.

also see http://www.warbirdalley.com/phantom.htm

Number Still Airworthy: One in civilian hands; A few dozen still in US military service as target drones and research aircraft; Active service in Germany, Japan, Greece, Turkey and South Korea.

unfortunately there won't be too many American built/designed jet fighters or bombers on the civilian registry. Every year or two someone submits a bill requiring the demilling of retired combat aircraft and tanks/ vehicles going all the way back to WWII, not too unlike the assault weapons/ mag capacity bans that we have to put up with. The thing is we won'tbe able to buy new but they have to cut up that $2 million Corsair.

Tim

 

[Deathrider1579]

I am a little cornfused

I may have missed something, or misunderstood something so that’s a warning.

Jeff, you said that the militia is controlled by the state, the governors that basically it is part of the government.

I am a bit as I said confused if that is the case how we can say that if the government banns guns we shouldn't let them have those guns peaceably.
If I am understanding you correctly you are saying the 2nd Amendment is not a device that the founders put in place to control the government through an armed populous.

To my understanding one of the basic arguments of those who support the 2nd amendment is that we the un-regulated but armed citizenry are the biggest check on the powers of the government.

I may have miss read you or not totally grasping what all is being said but this is the way it came across to me.

Thanks,

-DR

 

[ozwyn]

I don't see anything wrong with a priavtely owned cannon as long as he jumped through the various annoying LEGAL hoops to get it.

Had I the funding for a private military aircraft i would absolutely go through the paperwork to get the armaments LEGALLY mounted.

the only question is did this individual elect not to go through legal channels.

going through a long exercise trying to explain why you think you should be allowed own a gun but he should not own a big gun (cannon) is a lot like borrowing his big cannon and shooting yourself in the foot with it imo.

If you have the money, go through the regulatory hoops (which we are stuck with) then why the hell SHOULDN'T he be able to buy one?

If i had bill gates money I would buy and refurbish a wwII battleship, just because I could. I mean, that's a private yacht that beats all others. And if i couldn't buy one off the government, I'd build one! (thus making me crazy as a loon, but why shouldn't it be legal?)

 

[Tommygunn]

The Uniform Militia Act of 1792 has defined the militia as being comprised of two groups; the organized militia, and the unorganized militia. That is BOTH those citizens in active militia service, and those who are not, except for a few public officials.

Quote:Originally Posted by Lucky
Jeff White, since you're a moderator I'm not sure who to report you to, but you are willfully spreading information which is clearly untrue, and I request that you correct that behaviour.

Jeff White's information is absolutely true and not only represents the point of view at the time the Constitution was formed; but the current view as well. About all I would add to his comment is that the militia was meant to be formed by the state governments to act as a check on the federal government (though under the version the Founders envisioned, it could be mobilized by the Federal government in an emergency). This is one place where the modern version has deviated. Few states maintain their own separate militias anymore... the National Guard is just that - national and federal.

Jeff White seems unfamiliar with the Uniform Militia Act of 1792. I have never considered these...miltia groups, such as the ones that have springed up like the Missouri 51st and the Militia of Montana, to be truly part of the "organized militia," since they were not organized by the state. But, that does not mean that they forsake their role as the "unorganized militia" simply because they informally organized.
Most of these people are, IMO, benign. The worst cases -- the nut jobs -- seem to exist at the periphery of the militias. Like McVeigh; he is commonly associated with militias by the MSM, lefties, and even federals, because he attended a few meetings with the Montana militia. In fact they allowed him to attend a couple or so meetings, but then asked him to leave as they regarded him as being too aggressive, or violent. Maybe they were a bit clairvoyant, since we all know what his next step on his road to infamy was: the Murrah Bombing. If I wanted to be snide I'd say the militias were better at vetting their members than the U.S. Army, since McViegh had served in the Army and in Desert Storm '91. But in fairness, it seems his extremism was picked up later, because of Waco, and after having read The Turner Diaries.
Just because you organize a few people into a..."militia," doesn't mean that you are now part of the "organized" militia; insofar as the Uniform Militia Act is concerned, you really haven't changed your status at all.

If I really believed we were in a tyranny, and there was NO OTHER WAY of regaining our freedoms, I would organize or join one myself; but IMHO that eventually would mean that all bets are off, TSHTF, and my life will forever be different. Gone will be hearth and home and family, possessions, even pets, for that matter.
It's a last ditch step.
We still have access to peaceful means; the voting booth, the jury pool, and can still opin in letters columns to papers and write our congresskritters.
The balloon is still firmly tethered, in other words.

 

[glummer]

Erinyes

... the Miller case ruled that the Second Amendment refers only to weapons suitable for militia use...

I'm not sure you've got the interpretation right. Your sentence implies "nothing but miltia weapons", and thus everything else is unprotected. My understanding of Miller is more like "miltia weapons yes, at the very least, and we are not going to talk about anything beyond that right now", thus leaving open the question of non-militia weapons.

Jeff White

The milita that is referred to in the constitution and the US code is not just anybody.

Actually, it's more like everybody.

It is regulated by the states and the governors have the authority to organize it, arm it ...

But not disarm it.

... and appoint it's commanders. It is a part of the government ...

in much the same sense that voters are "part of the government"

... not a check on the government like the members ...

If the RKBA is individual, then they ARE a check on the government

 

[Keith Wheeler]

Should you be allowed to own a thermo-nuclear weapon?

What an absolutely mind-numbingly asinine response. Sorry I don't recall the correct term, but taking an argument to absurd extremes is irrational.

On to the whole bit about owning an artillery piece. No where does it say what the particular gun was. There are tons (literally) of original and reproduction civil-war era cannon (please not the correct use of the plural) all over the south. Heck, we're well known for setting them up outside of our government buildings, usually facing north. Using the term "cannon" rather than "howizter" would lead me to believe the ATFE-ell-emm-inno-pee towed off a black powder piece, completely legal to own (at least in free states like this one) without any hoops at all.

On the utter stupidity shown by the "I want an F4, why can't I have it" crowd, leeading to the above insane "rationalization" about nuclear weapons...history has shown that whoever 1) can afford nuclear bombs, fighter aircraft, submarines, etc and 2) wants them, will have them. It's not a question of "right", at that level it becomes a question of money. I bet if Bill Gates really really wanted an F4 Phantom he'd go buy one from one the many countries we sold 'em to.

On the concept of "militias". My big fear about folks calling themselves a militia is that they don't so much believe in freedom, but rather freedom for everyone just like them. For some reason I just can't imagine the militia types here in my state being too awfully friendly to me.

 

[hksw]

Now someone please tell me why someone needs a freaking cannon?

I wasn't able to find any photos of the cannon that the ATF hauled away but I would guess that it is one of those old pre-1900's muzzle loading black powder cannons. No one of course needs a cannon such as that but from what I've surmised from FM2's posts, he hasn't seen much of their use in live fire competitions. They look fun as hell. What's really great is seeing bowling ball sized cannon balls head down range toward the wood targets. They go slow enough to clearly see them in flight.

Tell me why someone needs a modern .50 cal?

 

[carlrodd]

Tell me why someone needs a modern .50 cal?

so that the powers that be know citizens are armed with the same weapons they are.

 

[ugaarguy]

Following up on gc70's post;

Quote:
The Second Amendment clearly does not protect things like Stinger missiles and such weapons.

The folks who wrote the Second Amendment had a lot broader definition of "arms" than many people today.

Consider the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 11:
Quote:
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

Letters of marque allow privately-owned armed ships to legally participate in a war. The Continental Congress issued about 800 letters of marque during the Revolutionary War. The whole concept of letters of marque would be useless if the writers of the Constitution had not expected private citizens to own armed ships.

There it is, Constitutional recognition of private ownership of crew-served, top-of-the-line weaponry.

If we look at the link and read further down to paragraphs fifteen and sixteen we see

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

According to The US Constitution, Article I, Section 8 we have the convergence of the two larger view points in this thread; There is both a right of the citizenry to own any military weapon, and the power of the government to regulate the militia. Paragraph eleven, in the context of letters of marque, as explained so well by gc70 shows the right of the citizenry to own the most advanced military arms available. Paragraphs fifteen and sixteen clearly show that the militia is under the authority of the US Congress, and the states are responsible to both appoint officers and train & discipline the militia according to what Congress prescribes.

Looking at both the US constitution and the context of letters and editorials by Coxe and many others during the time of the formation of the constitution it appears that these men favored two militias. The organized militia for defense of the homeland from insurgents and foreign foes, and the unorganized militia to defend the country from its own government. Both sides are right in this discussion, the views are not mutually exclusive. Crazy huh?

 

[Molon Labe]

The milita that is referred to in the constitution and the US code is not just anybody.

True. But my state constitution refers to the "unorganized militia."

By definition, I am a member of my state's unorganized militia. And I train once a month.

 

[Flyboy]

http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/Misc/F4dAirToAir/index.html
Privately-owned McDonnell-Douglas F4 Phantom; owned by the Collings Foundation.

My guess as to why you can't own one is that you can't afford it.

As for cannons, if you can cite a law forbidding ownership, go for it; as I understand it, though, cannons are considered muzzleloaders, and almost completely unregulated by the Feds. Please feel free to prove me wrong, though.

 

[StrikeFire83]

My Original Question: Should you be allowed to own a thermo-nuclear weapon?

Keith Wheeler's response

What an absolutely mind-numbingly asinine response. Sorry I don't recall the correct term, but taking an argument to absurd extremes is irrational.

On the utter stupidity shown by the "I want an F4, why can't I have it" crowd, leeading to the above insane "rationalization" about nuclear weapons...history has shown that whoever 1) can afford nuclear bombs, fighter aircraft, submarines, etc and 2) wants them, will have them. It's not a question of "right", at that level it becomes a question of money. I bet if Bill Gates really really wanted an F4 Phantom he'd go buy one from one the many countries we sold 'em to.

On the concept of "militias". My big fear about folks calling themselves a militia is that they don't so much believe in freedom, but rather freedom for everyone just like them. For some reason I just can't imagine the militia types here in my state being too awfully friendly to me.

It's interesting in your rush to call my question "mind-numbingly asinine" that you fail on all accounts to answer it. Who’s brainpower should be questioned, my friend? It was a valid question.

If the 2nd Amendment is to be taken literally, with original intent, which I think it is, then why shouldn’t we believe that the Founders wanted the citizenry to be able to possess all arms that the military had access to at the time: Rifled muskets, black powder cannons, and hand grenades?

Then the wolf’s at the door, I needs to protect my family, rarely plucks his ass off the couch types come out of the woodwork and say that “We should be able to own or build whatever the gobernmint’s military has.”

If that statement is going to be made in earnest here, then I will continue to ask in earnest:

1. Should private citizens of the United States be able to legally own/build nuclear weapons?

2. Should private citizens of the United States be able to legally own poison gas bombs/rounds and their delivery systems.

3. Should private citizens of the United States be able to legally form un-appointed, self-actualizing judges, juries, and executioners in the form of these “militias.”

I don’t know all the details of the original ATF raid in question, largely because the media is rabidly anti-gun and important details were left out of the story. My original post was targeted at the responses of the couch potato arbiters of destiny.

 

[Thin Black Line]

I'm all in favor of repealing '68 and '86. However, when it comes to civilians
posseessing WMDs, get real. I've said this before on THR --1/3 of the human
population has a tenuous attachment of their frontal lobes on a good day.

It's one thing to have a M240 and a few belts of linked ammo, it's quite another
for John and Jane Q who can't program recording a TV show, to have a nuke.