Yellowfin
Member
Hopefully he'll double his earnings from the previous case and DC will get slapped with contempt of court.
When you provide for the organizing and arming of a military unit, (and that's exactly what the militia is when called into service) you say how many men each unit has and how they are to be equipped. The militia act of 1792 spelled out exactly what each unit was to have. Congress even stated that:
Forgive me for pushing the matter, but what I understand is that while the militia is actively serving, i.e. there is a need to call it up, Congress can choose to arm its members how it will.
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;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.
The reason the Second Amendment guarantees individual people the right to keep and bear arms, not the militia companies, is that there was a fear that the federal government would use its power to equip and call the militia to duty as a means to disarm the general population. It was therefore necessary that individuals, in their individual capacity, not their military capacity, have the right to have guns.
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American." Tench Coxe
Jeff, under your reasoning, the Congress could state that "the militia shall be armed with brooms and chickenfeathers. The Department of the Army shall regulate the specifications thereof." By your logic, the militia could be effectively disarmed, paving the way for a tyranny imposed by a standing army.
The fact that the Bill of Rights AMENDS (i.e. changes and/or supercedes certain clauses of) the Constitution means that Article I, Section 8 is not the be all and end all regarding the militia.
I don't agree that we should not seek to legalize automatics. Heller stands for the proposition that the 2A protects arms in common use by civilians, which are suitable for militia service. The modern day analogue to "a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock" is an M-16A3 with seven loaded magazines. (Or M4, MP5, etc, take your pick for an ordinary infantryman's primary weapon.)
We know, of course, that the antis would like to limit the term "arms" to only those firearms which were in use at the time of ratification of the 2nd. Scalia addressed this, and showed how absurd it is - because otherwise the government could censor radio, TV, any newspaper printed on modern printing equipment, the Internet, etc. Further, the Constitution also has a clause in Article I, Section 8 dealing with the power of Congress to issue "Letters of Marque and Reprisal." Letters of Marque are, basically, a Congressional license to act as a pirate or a privateer. Private citizens can, if Congress approves, take on and take over (or sink) foreign warships and foreign-flagged merchant ships. Such Letters were actually issued during the War of 1812. Now, the question is: how does one take on a foreign warship or an armed merchant ship? Even in Revolutionary War days, it wasn't with muskets and Kentucky Rifles - some citizens, and many groups of citizens, owned cannon. CLEARLY the Founders knew this (some of them were the owners of cannon), else they would not have put such a clause into the main body of the Constitution, nor would they have said "arms" instead of "firearms" or "guns" or "muskets, rifles and pistols" or some other very limiting language into the 2nd Amendment.
The Second Amendment is at its core about creating and sustaining warfighting capability.
We can no longer ignore the worst-case scenario that if a war comes to our shores, the people must be prepared to defend against the threat that foreign and/or domestic aggressors will confiscate or destroy property and destroy lives. For a sovereign people, particularly those in the midst of armed struggles, war is often a matter of national and social survival.
Modern warfare uses explosives and machinery to subdue enemies and territories.
The strength of military forces is no longer measured by the number of men under arms. Today, military forces are measured by the number--and warfighting capabilities--of their weapon systems.
Were you ever a soldier? Ground combat arms? If you were, you'd understand just how ridiculous this sounds in 2009. Just who do you think has the resources to mount a military campaign on the North American continent? the Unites States is the only nation with the capability to project significant force any distance from it's national borders.
The best thing we can do for RKBA is forget the militia clause.
The thing is, no nation remains on top forever. At the height of Roman power, citizens of the empire most likely thought as you do. My point is, no one can guarantee that in the next 50 or 100 years there will not be a war fought on American soil. We are not invincible, and nothing lasts forever.
Well, then i'd be willing to bet that some inspiration and insight from a master strategist and constitutional scholar such as yourself would set these misguided folks straight:
It's certainly bad, but I don't think it rises to RICO level.Interesting reading a page back where it was explained how CA regulates its approved list. This borders on extortion. Maybe some one should file a RICO action against the State of CA.
abolition of California
To serve effectively means to follow the lawful orders of the chain of command. Once again, in case you've forgotten, Article I Section 8 of the constitution gives congress the authority to dictate what weapons the militia has.
Drop your emotional attachment to the idea that you should be able to have any weapon you want in case you need to defend the country and try to look at it the way someone without an emotional attachment to the issue would.
Article XV of the NRA Bylaws sets forth the rules for amending the Association's Bylaws, which have in fact been amended to since it's inception.It has nothing at all to do with the NRA bylaws which date back to the 1870s.
What individuals think is appropriate is irrelevant. Nor is what Congress thinks is appropriate relevant to the scope of the individual right to bear arms, because Article I Section 8 is not a limitation on the 2nd Amendment, but a grant of federal power over the militia. What matters is what the Court thinks the scope of the 2nd Amendment is.When you get your congressman to introduce and legislation amending the US Code to say that an M16A3 with 7 magazines is the modern day equivalent of a good musket or firelock, then you will have legal grounds to say that. Until then, it's a pipe dream. Like it or not Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution give congress the authority to prescribe what arms are acceptable for militia service. There is nothing in the second amendment that says in the absence of guidance from congress individuals are free to decide what is an appropriate militia weapon.
Indiana Constitution said:Article 1 - Sect. 2. That all power is inherent in the people; and all free Governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times and unalienable and indefeasible right to alter or reform their Government in such manner as they may think proper.
That was directed at something somebody said earlier. I should have quoted them. I don't believe that specific passage is in every state, but it is in the majority of them. I know of one state that has altered their constitution to remove that language. The problem with voting alone is it allows the tyranny of the majority. I think these provisions counter balance that fact.ServiceSoon,
Every state has that, it's called voting.