Congress has already decided that the National Guard is the only militia necessary for the security of a free state. "The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art. I. 8, cl. 15, 16, of the Constitution. It has only been in recent years that the National Guard has been an organized force, capable of being assimilated with ease into the regular military establishment of the United States. From the days of the Minutemen of Lexington and Concord until just before World War I, the various militias embodied the concept of a citizen army, but lacked the equipment and training necessary for their use as an integral part of the reserve force of the United States Armed Forces. The passage of the National Defense Act of 1916 materially altered the status of the militias by constituting them as the National Guard." - Maryland v. United States https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/381/41.html
You said this before. As before, you -still- cannot demonstrate your statement to be true. Absent this demonstration, you have no rational basis for your position. As usual.
You are incorrect. The militia you refer to above (National Guard) is not the only militia. It is the only militia referred to in that ruling because it’s the militia that was germane. The SC case above dealt with the issue of whether National Guard members are Federal Employees or not. There is no reference to the unorganized militia in that ruling because the unorganized militia is irrelevant to the case. The US Congress clearly does not think the National Guard is the only militia necessary to the security of a free state. Only those ignorant of US law (code) could make such a claim. 10 US code clearly provides for militias outside the National Guard. 10 US Code S 246 contains descriptions of the two types of militias provided for under most recent “militia acts”. The unorganized militia is the pool from which organized militia and militias not under federal control can be drawn from. Such state militias, called state defense forces, are organized under the Compact Clause of the Constitution. Nearly all states have provisions outlining formation of state defense forces and 22 states have defined active state defense forces operating under various names.
Fair enough. I'll restate my position to avoid misunderstandings. IF a well regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state, the 2nd A (as written) is irrelevant. As a side note, I do happen to believe that a militia is no longer necessary, given that the security of a free state is protected by law enforcement, armed forces, intelligence agencies, etc. But my real point is that, according to the 2nd A, the right to keep and bear arms is dependent on the need for a well regulated militia to the security of a free state. Because that's what the 2nd A says. The discussion of whether a militia is or not actually necessary would be a completely different topic. But before delving into it, we need to be clear on what the 2nd A says.
I don't like to report posters. In general, there are two reasons why I would do it: one is because somebody posts something illegal or immoral or that incites others to commit illegal or immoral acts. The second one is harassment. If you have something to say about my arguments, then go for it. But it's pretty obvious that you have nothing to contribute to this debate, so I cannot interpret your posts as anything other than harassment in an attempt to provoke a response that would not be received well by the moderators. So please desist.
And you've been shown that your interpretation has no basis in law or in the rules of grammar. It's why your argument has lost every time it's been tried in court.
Thank you for you long-winded admission that you know you cannot prove your claim to be true. If It took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, who do you continue to make statement you cannot prove true?
Bolded emphasis, yours. You are fully aware of the fact the 2nd Amendment, literally, says: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Thus, you know you claim that the 2nd Amendment literally, says: "The right to keep and bear arms applies only to militia" is false. As it took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, who do you continue to make statements you know are false?
Yep! That's exactly what I said. "The ship having docked into the port, the passengers can embark". Which means that the passengers can't disembark if the ship hasn't docked.in the port.... they might even drown. That's English 101. Study and be ready to be tested. And if you make it past the test, be on the lookout for English 102... But don't expect to understand the sequel if you didn't understand the original
And thus, you admit you made a statement you know is false. As it took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, why do you continue to make statements you know are false?
Not really. I’ve shown you why your interpretation is invalid. So have about a dozen other people on this forum, let alone the actual judiciary who’s shown you your interpretation is nonsense. It doesn’t matter how many times you post this silly argument, you remain refuted.
I haven't made any "interpretation". I read the meaning of the words as written. The fact that you didn't even notice this simple fact tells us that you weren't even paying attention. Thanks anyway...
lol, yes you have. Which you’ve been shown is incorrect. You know this statement is false. Always happy to correct you. the facts remain. Your interpretation of the second amendment had no basis in law or by the rules of grammar. It’s why your argument has lost every single time it’s been tried in court.
You routinely make statements you know you cannot prove true You routinely make statements you know are false. Above, you make both. As it took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, who do you continue to make statements you know are false? As it took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, who do you continue to make statements you know cannot demonstrate to be true?
So again you have repeatedly made statements that are not relevant? Why have you repeated the claim militias are no longer necessary in this thread if you don’t want to back up that claim or have it discussed by others? Now, to get back to your OP. 1) Can you demonstrate that passengers cannot board a ship from a launch? 2) Can you demonstrate that John does not also have the option of employing a ladder to reach the ceiling? Does his act of standing on the chair in and of itself exclude the legality of using the ladder option? 3) Can you demonstrate access to books is the sole reason the library can’t close? Perhaps the computer lab is in the library and students need it to complete the project as well. Now, keeping in mind the Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution, let’s have a look at what the politicians of the day said about the right to arms independent of militias. "On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823 "To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788 "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788 It should be noted even though George Mason contributed much to the crafting of the Constitution, he refused to sign it because it lacked a bill of rights and did not end the slave trade. The bill of rights was proposed later by Madison, a fellow Virginia delegate, in part as a result of Mason’s influence. “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788 "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778 “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803 President Madison appointed Tucker as a District Judge. Tucked also advocated for emancipation in the 1790’s. “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 Coxe was at one time arrested on charges of being a British Loyalist but charges went nowhere and he was pardoned. He also wrote this. “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal "f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788 “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785 So, we have overwhelming evidence the keeping and bearing of arms was not predicated on formal militia service in the minds of those who wrote and implemented the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Furthermore, the ninth amendment secures the right of arms for purposes other than militia service because the Constitution does not exclude keeping and bearing arms for other purposes. You could invoke the Tenth Amendment and make a case for states infringing on rights, but then you have a serious problem with trying to reconcile the 13th Amendment with the 2nd Amendment in relation to the 10th. That’s especially problematic considering two of the gentlemen quoted above were quite adamant states didn’t have the right to enslave or prohibit weapon ownership.
The "unorganized militia" is not well-regulated. It's only a nominal militia. Gun ownership in the "unorganized militia" is not protected by the Second Amendment. "Since the Miller decision, no federal court has found any individual's possession of a military weapon to be 'reasonably related to a well regulated militia.' 'Technical' membership in a state militia (e.g., membership in an 'unorganized' state militia) or membership in a non-governmental military organization is not sufficient to satisfy the 'reasonable relationship' test. Oakes, 564 F.2d at 387. Membership in a hypothetical or 'sedentary' militia is likewise insufficient." -US v. Hale "The term 'unorganized' did not begin to emerge until the 1830s and 1840s, when a massive wave of opposition destroyed the compulsory militia system. Nobody wanted to serve in the militia. State governors and legislators wanted to be able to accommodate this desire, but they were bound by the 1792 Uniform Militia Act, which stated that every white male aged 18-45 would be in the militia. However, the 1792 Uniform Militia Act explicitly allowed the states to determine who was exempt from militia service. So states divided their militias into two sections, the 'organized' militia and the 'unorganized' militia. In this way, the letter, though not the spirit, of the 1792 law could be complied with. However, only the 'organized' militia would have responsibilities. These people would be volunteers, people who actually wanted to perform militia service; they gradually evolved into the National Guard. These people would have uniforms, guns, and would drill, review and encamp. The other people were the people who did NOT want to be in the militia. Accordingly, members of the 'unorganized' militia were NOT supposed to perform any duty or carry any weapons or have any responsibilities. All that would remain was the nominal authority of the state over them for military manpower purposes. This group of people had no militia responsibilities at all (in some areas they had to register, like for the draft today). In this way states could flaunt the spirit of the 1792 Uniform Militia Act, while nominally keeping to the letter of it."
Who gets to decide what the official definition of "well-regulated militia" is? You didn't post the entire decision. "U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1021 (8th Cir. 1992) (“I concur in the result reached in Judge John R. Gibson's opinion in this matter. I agree completely with the portions dealing with Hale's hearsay and confrontation contentions. I also agree that Hale's possession of the particular weapons at issue in this case is not protected by the Second Amendment. I disagree, however, that Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942); United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir. 1976); United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1977) and United States v. Nelson, 859 F.2d 1318 (8th Cir. 198 properly interpret the Constitution or the Supreme Court's holding in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939) insofar as they say that Congress has the power to prohibit an individual from possessing any type of firearm, even when kept for lawful purposes. Judge Gibson's opinion seems to adopt that premise and with that holding, I disagree.”)"
Again you have fallen into the trap of not understanding firearms and existing law well enough to see your example here is not relevant. US vs. Hale concerned firearms illegally possessed by Hale under the Hughes amendment to the 1968 Gun Control Act. The SC has never decided a case declaring the 1968 Act or the 1986 Hughes Amendment unconstitutional. For this reason the first circuit judge’s opinion above was pre-ordained. His opinion on the unorganized militia is incorrect. The unorganized militia concept was not preserved in US code so that states could flout the 1792 Militia Acts. The unorganized militia was explicitly provided for in the 1903 Dick Act that repealed the Militia Acts of 1792/1795. The Dick Act of 1903 formed the National Guard. Because the Union of States relies on state’s retaining the right to non federalized defense, there had to be provisions in the Dick Act for unorganized militia to counterbalance what was essentially federalization of the Guard. This circuit judge has little understanding of the militia acts or the gun control act of 1968/Hughes amendment. His ruling is technically correct because the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Hughes Amendment are the law of the land, but his opinions on militia are not based on facts.
Yes, you are correct. If the weapons in question had not been “illegal” under current law, the ruling would have been very different. Thanks for posting the text following what was provided.
The "unorganized militia" is not well-regulated. Can you come up with even one example of how it has been necessary to the security of a free state within the past 50 years? I don't think so.
The entire militia was never intended to be active and in formal training. That was never the intention even under the Militia Acts of 1792, which were written and implemented by the same politicians that wrote and implemented the Bill of Rights. If it were, as I’ve stated before, militia members would have been divested of arms at age 46. I suggest you read post #116 above. It may help you understand the purpose of the militia and personal ownership of weapons in the US.
You don't get to decide what "well regulated" means. Only Congress does, and they passed the Militia Act that led to 10 USC 246.
