Militia Raid

[Lucky]

woodcdi I thought you were saying Melissa! Just kidding, of course we're talking about militias Your definition makes sense, but they're not actively engaged in combat, so rather than guerillas they really are militias by your definition, waiting for an emergency.

Bartholomew Roberts
I never argued he had no right to own firearms. I said he had no right to form a private militia. Do you understand the distinction?

Jeff said that, and you agreed and took up his cause, though?
"There is also nothing in the constitution to prevent the government from forbidding or otherwise regulating the private formation of armed groups."
"Jeff White's information is absolutely true"

That authority includes the power to tell Joe Militiaman he may not form his own private army.

Source?
Definition of private army?
Reason for referring to a milita and an army as synonyms?

If you don't understand the concept of federalism, I don't have the time

Argumentative. The fact is you and Jeff say a lot, but don't actually illustrate your opinion. You are confusing statements for what something isn't for a definition of what it is.

And it is very blurry whether you support the raid, arrest and property confiscation of this individual or not. Ok, it's not very blurry, but since you haven't specifically stated one way or the other, I'll refrain from speculating.

 

[johnster999]

I'm glad the militia/cannon guy is challenging the BATF. I hope he wins and I get to own my own cannon someday due to his efforts.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Jeff said that, and you agreed and took up his cause, though?
"There is also nothing in the constitution to prevent the government from forbidding or otherwise regulating the private formation of armed groups."

That is correct. State governments can forbid the formation of private militia groups as a function of their police powers and their authority over the militia.

Source?

I suggest you read the Federalist Papers 23-29.

The fact is you and Jeff say a lot, but don't actually illustrate your opinion.

Well Lucky, Jeff has tried the extra information route and I have tried the succinct and short route. Neither one seems to convince you. I guess you can either research the issue deeper on your own or start pointing out where we are wrong.

And it is very blurry whether you support the raid, arrest and property confiscation of this individual or not. Ok, it's not very blurry, but since you haven't specifically stated one way or the other, I'll refrain from speculating.

I haven't even read the link so I couldn't say whether it was justified or not. I was just reading the thread to make sure everybody was behaving and saw you mistate what has been the law in this country for over 200 years.

 

[gc70]

State governments can forbid the formation of private militia groups as a function of their police powers and their authority over the militia.

Absolutely true, as reflected in the Mississippi State Code:

SEC. 33-1-31. Unlawful military-type organizations.

It shall be unlawful for any body of men whatsoever, other than the regularly organized armed militia of this state, the armed forces of the United States, and the students of public or of regularly chartered educational institutions where military science is a prescribed part of the course of instruction and color guards or ceremonial firing squads of veterans organizations chartered by acts of congress, to associate themselves together as a military organization for drill or parade in public with firearms in this state, without special license from the governor for each occasion. Application for such license must be approved by the mayor and board of aldermen or commissioners of the town or city where such organization may propose to parade. Any person or persons participating in such unlawful association shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction of same shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not to exceed six months or by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars or both fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court. The governor may permit the passage through or the attendance in the state of the organized militia of other states for the purpose of attending joint maneuvers, rifle competitions, or for such other purposes as he may deem proper.

SOURCES: Codes, 1942, Sec. 8519-32; Laws, 1966, ch. 539, Sec. 21, eff from and after June 1, 1966.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

This thread has forgotten that just because a bunch of gavel wielding thugs in robes "rules" something a certain way doesn't make it right, it just makes it law.


Laws are not always right. I hope we can all agree on that. We can all go back to the 1800's where certain laws about Negroes were completely lawful, justified and "right"....

 

[2ndamd]

For the first post:
My prayers go out to his family.

It is sad that liberty continues to become more and more scarce and it is even worse when a gun owner condemns someone for merely trying to exercise his 2nd amd right to bear arms.

We will have to continue to try to get the 2nd amd rewritten in language that is specific to allow the people the unmistakble right to own any type of firearm to defend this great country from ANY despots both foreign and domestic.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

This thread has forgotten that just because a bunch of gavel wielding thugs in robes "rules" something a certain way doesn't make it right, it just makes it law.

The authority to discipline and train the militia is written into the Constitution of the United States. It wasn't a rule by a "bunch of gavel wielding thugs", it was written in the charter of our nation by the men who fought to create it. They explained their thinking on the issue at great length in the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers. This is really not a controversial or unclear point.

 

[2ndamd]

I only follow the law of rightousness. This country has some man made laws that were created out of spite, pride, greed, lust for power and political gain. Therefore, many of this country's laws lack a moral base. Thus, they have no need to be followed by the rightous. (slavery is a good example)

I mean what will they do? Put you in bondage? Didn't the Romans and the Egyptians do this to certain religous groups throughout the ages. Many other countrys (including the U.S.) have persecuted the rightous (slavery, witch hunts). Funny how they continue to fail in their quest to suppress the rightous.

Beware the truth. It can be a very powerful tool but, many will persecute you for being truthful or rightous because it intimidates them and scares them. Few people left in the world that can handle the truth.

Remember "You can not seperate the truth from rightousness. They are one in the same."

 

[gc70]

Therefore, many of this country's laws lack a moral base. Thus, they have no need to be followed by the rightous.

That's a good philosophy, 2ndamd. How do you personally put it into practice?

 

[2ndamd]

Remeber: "You can not seperate the truth from rightousness. They are one in the same."

Many people throughout history have been called "great leaders" for doing nothing more than recognizing the truth and calling it to people's attention (Ghandi, Steven Biko etc...)

I am glad you like that "philosophy". But many would just call it the truth. Some people can not handle the truth. It calls into question their character or they feel like they are being attacked for their transgressions against others. No matter what man made law you rationalize your actions with a transgression of truth is an indignant act just the same. People sometimes forget that it is never too late to change. And that redemption and forgiveness can play a part in some people finding the truth. Thus, changing their behaviors/actions to one of rightousness.

 

[gc70]

So, is your personal leadership in the form of telling other people to ignore morally baseless laws?

 

[Trebor]

There is still nothing stopping the states from having their own true militias which are indeendent of the National Guard. Any governor who wished to form one could. It's just that he'd have to pay for it out of pocket.

I do wonder if a governor formed a militia, if he could fund it with Homeland Security Grant money? Maybe get surplus DOD material to equip it?

Michigan DOES have an official state sanctioned Militia. The Michigan Volunteer Defense Force. This has been on the books for a long time but was just recently revitalized. It's state run and state controlled and members can't be sent out of state. It is an adjuent to the Michigan National Guard.

http://www.michigan.gov/dmva/0,1607,7-126-36614---,00.html

 

[2ndamd]

I think many in history have espoused such views.
I think many in history wish they would have acted in a more rightous mode (like the Jewish people in Poland or Germany).

Why such an interest in my actions?
Are you in need of guidance?
Merely conducting an investigation?
Or, do you have a question in regards to the truth/rightousness?

I do not propose to have ALL the answers. But I know that many in history (including our founding Fathers) sought to fight tyranny, oppression, oligarchy, and despotism. Many people in this country are thankful that the founding fathers were so "indignant" of English laws.

Wouldn't you agree that there is a place for fighting an oppressive despot?

Now, how you go about fighting this despotism is a different question. That is one of tactics. Many feel Ghandi had a profound effect with a peaceful resistance to the oppression he was faced with.
Many feel that the founding fathers had no choice but, to goto war with England.

Whatever the tactic you choose to fight with. As long as you fight for truth and rightousness you will be vindicated.

 

[GhostCat]

WOW.....This Thread is Depressing....The way some of you people think makes it obvious our country doesn't stand a chance......I mean, I already had a feeling this country was doomed but reading this thread has me absolutley convinced!!!!!

Example, we have two (clueless) moderators who had the following posts:

Jeff White (Moderator)

There is also nothing in the constitution to prevent the government from forbidding or otherwise regulating the private formation of armed groups. In fact this very issue was visited by the Supreme Court in the 1800s. Look up Presser v. Illinois.

The milita that is referred to in the constitution and the US code is not just anybody. It is regulated by the states and the governors have the authority to organize it, arm it and appoint it's commanders. It is a part of the government not a check on the government like the members of the armed political parties who have soiled the term militia claim it to be.

Jeff

Bartholomew Roberts (Moderator)

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.

And I thought the High Road was a group of like minded folks.......boy was I wrong.
Tell ya what....ya'll just keep buying your guns and ammo and keep'em all clean and neat in the safes.....In the mean time, I'll take my and train with them.......why am I training with them you ask?????........If you have to ask that question there is no hope for you so I'm not going to bother to answer.

Bottom line.....Militia is the last defense against a tyrannical gov't.....If you want to live under tyranny, more power to you. Its just sad to think you people actually feel that way.

GhostCat

 

[gc70]

Why such an interest in my actions?
Are you in need of guidance?
Merely conducting an investigation?
Or, do you have a question in regards to the truth/rightousness?

2ndamd, I am trying to find out whether you are advocating anything concrete and specific or simply waxing philosophical.

 

[bouis]

Arguing "because the Supreme Court says so" is a pretty lousy appeal to authority; what matters is the argument that the Supreme Court makes in reaching its conclusions. Supreme Court decisions in contravention of the Constitution have no moral authority and hold force of law only as the dictates of five black-robed tyrants, and are just waiting to be corrected by future decisions. This is why the Supreme Court (for better or worse) is not bound by any precedent it doesn't like...

It could be argued, very convincingly I think, that the Constitution and the founders presumed the existence of an organizated militia and that the opportunity for participation in an organized, 'classical' militia is an individual right. While the states clearly have the authority to regulate and dicipline the militia, such orders would have to be rationally related to the purposes and goals of a classical militia, so a state can't simply declare that the organized militia doesn't exist, or as someone said above, that it consists entirely of a couple Colonels who are drinking buddies of the Governor...

 

[Lucky]

Ok then, Bartholomew, so how about a question? Trying to get a commitment from you is like pulling teeth

**What restrictions does the state and federal power over militias necessitate on freedom of association, speech, or right to keep and bear arms?

I suggest you read the Federalist Papers 23-29.

It becomes apparent to me that there is little point in citing my reference material, or explaining why I disagree with your interpretations of the sources you refer to, as you don't actually read them. And in retaliation you refer to voluminous writings that you claim support your position (which I do read, and the interpretation of which I question).


So, as a last stab at eye-opening, I'll cite one more reference. And I'll make it bright pink so it can't go unread!

(PLEASE READ ME)
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+10USC311
(PLEASE READ ME)

" Subtitle A--General Military Law

PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

CHAPTER 13--THE MILITIA

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of
title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration
of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female
citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."

 

[2ndamd]

gc70 I most certainly advocate any person who faces tyranny to action to fight that despot.
I will NOT choose the tactics for this fight.
I know how I will fight for liberty, truth and rightousness.
Do you know how you will fight?
Or are you looking for ideas?

I can recommend some good sources of information on people in history that have faced such depotism with vigor. They fought their oppressor with many different tactics, some would call peaceful and other would call violent.


But, to go into the types of tactics I would advocate would be a departure from the thread's original purpose.

Vindication does not mean victory......some sheep need to remember this. Short-term victory is not always going to happen.

Slavery was fought for how many generations?
But, all those that fought for rightousness will eventually be found vindicated. Some of those oppressions we are still fighting.....and not any end in sight.

 

[GhostCat]

OK, so this is a bit extreme but I thought it fit right in with this thread......

 

[2ndamd]

LOL!!!
That's a great picture!


To gc70.....please reference my signature line for a nice quote from Samuel Adams.

 

[Steak]

I don't NEED a cannon,

I don't even have one, but I have fired one, and every american should get that chance.

Up north, in remote part of the mountains, my buddy's uncle was cutting down an old pine tree that had died. Really tall one. Friend's grandfather suggested we beat him too it. He took us out in the field, about 150 yards off from the tree. 2 misses, and we finally got right on target. Blew a hole clean through the center of the tree. A few seconds later it cracked up, and the top 75% of the tree crashed down.

Did we NEED to do that? Of course not, but it was fun, and we hurt nobody (not even the tree, it was already dead). If anything, we saved my buddy's uncle a few bucks since he needed nobody to climb and top the tree. He was quite amused and impressed with the shot in fact.

Any rational person knows that an old cannon is no real threat. It is not the preferred tool of folks robbing the 7-11.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Screw US vs Miller. It is just an opinion of six men, long dead. Letting the SCOTUS have the final say is like "putting speed freaks in charge of the pharmacy."

"The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

I know you said the above tongue-in-cheek, but in truth, when dealing with laws which run contrary to the Constitution, you are correct.

----------

Jeff White, just because "old" case law supports your opinion does not make it constitutional: that first quote is from the same same case that ironically established the precedent of judicial review in the USA, something *not* granted to the SCOTUS by the Constitution! Note that this occurred in 1803 - it didn't take long for gov't to start expanding its own powers.

All power comes from "the people" (individuals), "the people" (individuals) have the right to own and bear arms (all forms, including militaristic), and are absolutely the final check-and-balance on all forms of government, as documented in the Declaration of Independence. Wrangling over legal definitions of the word 'militia' will not change the above fact.

On a side note, does the disagreement between you and Lucky (whose interpretation coincides with mine) stem from the apparent control states have over official state-sanctioned militias as opposed to "unorganized militia" as defined in 13USC311 which are "we, the people" (individuals)? I'm not a member of a state-sanctioned/official militia, so I fall into the latter catagory and my statements are based on that.

 

[Jeff White]

GhostCat said;

And I thought the High Road was a group of like minded folks.......boy was I wrong.

You're very wrong. We don't agree on much around here. If we did, what would there be to discuss.

Bottom line.....Militia is the last defense against a tyrannical gov't.

No, the militia as called for in the constitution is part of the government. It's the elected government's last force option. I suggest you actually read the history of the milita and military force in this country. The milita act of 1792 stated that one of the reasons the milita should be called out for was to suppress insurrections. So how can the milita be a last defense against a tyrannical government if that same government is empowered to call it out to suppress insurrection? Any group that formed to resist a tyrannical government would not be the militia that is called for by law. It would be an outlaw group, just as the founding fathers were. And the tyrannical government could call the militia up to fight the outlaw group.

Those people who are members of the so called modern militias are not serving in the militia defined by law. They are members of an armed political party. In 28 states they are already outlaws (28 states have laws against private military organizations). They are closer to members of the SA in Germany in the 1930s or the Red Guards in China during the cultural revolution. They seek to influence political discourse by threat of the use of force or rarely (in this country anyway) the actual use of force. In those 28 states where private military organizations are illegal they are allowed to operate because the government doesn't take them seriously. That would change should they ever change their tactics so that the government actually considered them a danger.

Lucky,
I think you should actually read what I posted. In Presser v. Illinois you'll find one of the few times the Supreme Court made a Second Amendment ruling. And do you know what, it was in our favor. Read this paragraph from Presser:

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying aside the constitutional provision out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration have no such effect." [p.619]

See the highlighted part? It is a ruling which affirms RKBA as an individual right. What Presser said was the states could regulate private military forces.It doesn't say that can forbid the keeping and bearing of arms. 28 states have laws on the books which forbid the formation of private armies or paramilitary organizations. But no state completely forbids keeping and bearing arms. Some states unfortunately get by with heavily regulating what arms can be kept, but no state forbids them totally.

I am sorry that the constitution and the US Code and history don't agree with your view of how things should be. BR and aren't making any of this up.

Sometime in the 1990s when the modern militia movement started, they took the term militia out of the Constitution and tried to change the meaning. Unfortunately, many people believe what the modern militia movement has made up of the history of the militia in this country.

The modern militia and it's members are armed political parties. They are not what the founding fathers ever envisioned for this nation.

Jeff

 

[Molon Labe]

Actually, I was stating U.S. law since 1783; but it also happens to be my opinion as well.

You seem to be of the mindset that, if a government passes a law forbidding me from doing something, then it is automatic proof I do not have the right to engage in that activity. That's pure, absolute nonsense. As an example, I would still retain the right to home-school my children if the government banned homeschooling.

Neither the government, nor the Founding Fathers, are allowed to define what my inalienable rights are. When it comes to my rights, I couldn't care less about Supreme Court decisions, written laws, or what Alexander Hamilton has to say... I am the sole definer my rights.

So lets go over this again:

You are stating opinions as facts. It is my opinion that I have every right to form a militia. (In fact, I did.) It is your opinion that I do not have the right to form a militia. Fine. I think you're wrong. But the key thing to remember is that your opinion is no more valid than mine.

 

[GhostCat]

I don't think there is anything you can say to prove to these people (Bartholomew and Jeff) that what we are saying is true and fact.
I think its one of those cases where the left-wing liberal element has come in and taken over a gun board.
I guess next they will tell us that we aren't allowed to own a non-sporting firearm when the next AWB takes place......Some people just don't have a clue!!!!.......

Just so you know where I stand....The militia is NOT appointed by the Gov't.....The militia is "We The People"......


GhostCat