well then show me where in my link it supported you. Golly gee debate 101 is not your strong suit hahahahahahahahaha you make me laugh out loud.
well do ya have a linky? I posted a link that didn't have the word theory in it at all. Come on discuss with facts not childish fodder. That is just too easy
<Rule 3> provide a link to your comment "It says it could be applied to legislation in theory if it was voted on that way" <Rule 3>
There is already mandatory training for those of us with a chl license or license to carry as it is now known in Texas. As you are allowed to carry openly in the state as long as you have gone through the training and passed a background check.
The organization, training and deployment of citizens as militia is an action that is entirely a function of government. There is no right to form or to be a member of a militia. The founders / framers did want a citizen "general" militia (as opposed to a "select" militia or standing army) and they did establish the framework for its establishment and maintenance of its discipline. That framework is Art I, Sec 8 cl's 15 & 16 and the laws created under those express powers (e.g., the Militia Act of 1792). Subsequent laws (Dick Act) have essentially extinguished clause 16 militia and supplanted it with a subset of clause 12 army. There is no current clause 16 authority by which militia may be formed from the general population, organized and trained; States were given the authority to organize "State Defensive Forces" which might resemble militia but have no connection to clause 16, they are again, an operation of clause 12 powers. Nobody possesses either the power or the "right" to do what you want to do. .
Actually private citizens have the right to gather, and have the right to bear arms. There is only one state where formation of private militias is illegal according to state law. I'm not sure if it's ever been questioned in court.
Private citizens do not possess any right to voluntarily associate together as a military company or organization. The action of assembly to drill or parade with arms is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government, Art I, Sec. 8, cl. 16. Such action cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Any and all can declare it illegal and they will win any challenge from citizens claiming a right to form their own militia. The issue was settled by the Supreme Court in 1876 in Presser v Illinois, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/116/252. It has not been challenged since (although it could be said the dissents in Heller idiotically argued that the protection of such a right was the primary intent of the 2nd Amendment; Stevens wrote -- "The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia.". LOL
People have the individual right to do both, so there is nothing to prevent them from exercising their individual rights....together. There's certainly no need to drill or parade while at it. People do it all the time. Hunting, neighborhood watches (yes I know theoretically they're not armed....but they are), all the way up to 3%er's and militias. Militia participated in the Bundy standoff. None of the militia that weren't actively engaged in taking over the federal buildings were even arrested. Pretty much every state has well established citizen militias.
The premise of the post I replied to was that it would be desirable that the militia be "well regulated" (properly functioning -- in operational order and condition). The people attaining the character of being considered --well regulated militia-- requires practice in the military arts. I'm not saying that they do not exist. I'm saying that if the state and federal government wanted to disrupt / disband the organizations and even arrest leaders / members, those people would have no legal claim to any "right" to organize themselves as an armed group. SCOTUS was clear back in 1876 and the force of that hasn't been challenged: "The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers." Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) LINK
The SC ruling says a militia may not do whatever they please, and like all Americans, are subject to the rule of law. 10 U.S. Code § 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. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. It should be the right of any US patriot to be able to form armed groups for self protection and service during times of crisis. I think the age restrictions are somewhat arbitrary, as most of the armed militia-types I've seen are 45 years- to 60 years-old.
I would jump in and post, but I just feel like we've already been through all of these a million times with the liberals, and they just go back to their same old lame talking points, even when they've been barraged by the facts a million times. They are not concerned with deaths or anything but control, and governmental control. It's sickening.
IANAL, and I still intend writing the AG of Colorado for clarification, as my state has a similar militia law, but I read it as "these men in this age bracket must serve", but not excluding volunteers outside the age or gender specified.
Uhhhh, no. You are not talking about being "subject to law", you are talking about actions independent of law. No lawful militia can be formed that is not set-out in law and only government entities were empowered to create, organize and deploy citizens as militia. Presser says that a group of citizens that "voluntarily associate together [organize] as a military company or organization" can not be considered militia because "military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government . . ." Those actions "cannot be claimed as a right independent of law". It isn't just having one's actions be "subject to the rule of law", the fact is, as far as "militia" is considered, only actions specifically set-out in law and performed by persons expressly called out in the law, are legal. Those parts of the US Code are the product of a 20th Century Congress which extinguished the Art I, Sec 8, clause 16 state militias and folded them into the Art I, Sec 8, clause 12 federal army, under a duel enlistment scheme. If it can be said to speak at all to the subject of our discussion, it confirms rather than impugns my position. It is similar to calling every eligible citizen "the electorate" but only those registered to vote can legally cast a ballot. The unorganized / reserve / inactive militia do not engage in any militia related actions and can be legally barred from doing so. They are merely the body of people from which the active militia is drawn from. Those powers which the people have surrendered and conferred to the federal government can not be claimed as a right; the principles of supremacy and preemption demand we accept this. One more time and in purple if it will help . . . There is no claimable right for citizens to "voluntarily associate together [organize] as a military company or organization" because, as Presser contnues, "Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, . . . " Directly to your statement above, you are conflating two separate and distinct subjects here. The age restrictions you reject for your imagined -right to form a citizen militia- are written in the laws that govern official militia creation and organization to establish who is liable to perform militia duty (an obligation with criminal penalties for evasion or avoidance). If militia formation were a right there would be no reason to mention arbitrary age restrictions for government approved and organized militia.
You can imagine a law to mean whatever you want. There are about 240 active militias comprised of private citizens that could care less about illegal court interpretations. You may not like them, but they are around. And I highly doubt the Trump administration is going to do anything but cheer them on. The Islamic paramilitary cells in the US are the people to fear.
I know they exist. I know the authorities know they exist. I know that in nearly all instances those privately organized militias are operating in an atmosphere of indifference from government authorities. I know that current government indifference is not a substitute for actually possessing a claimable right to do something that would render future government interest in barring their militia activities unactionable. That no government entity is shutting them down now, does not mean the government does not possess immutable power to shut them down. I like them . . . I'm just making the legal argument that they have no right to do what they are doing. Government possesses field preemption over these military type of actions and if government desired, they could extinguish private militias and the people would have no legal recourse. I agree I agree and I would argue that private militia units would probably be the best countermeasure to these terror camps -- local people know what's going on in their areas and can mount a better surveillance operation or even offensive against them than outside, overly concerned about PC authorities.
