This will come down to interpretation.
1. Who fits the definition of a "Well organized militia" today?
2. Is such a militia "necessary to the security of a free state" today?
3. Does today's militia have arms? If they do does it fit this: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"?
So now that this is said think about this since I understand this in a few ways.
The answer to #1 would be the National Guard. They are a "well organized militia". I know they weren't around when this was written, but do they
fit the definition today? If not, who would?
Answer to #2, yes and no. This one isn't easy since taking away this organized militia goes against the Constitution, but are they needed to protect
the states today?
Yes they are since federal military personnel are not allowed to do the work they do on US land. I know that the Guard can deploy and come under
active duty commanders, and I know the active duty people can be sent in to support the Guard in CONUS, so is this causing more of a problem by
blending the difference in the missions of each organization?
#3 Is easy if you think the Guard is the "well organized militia" of today since they have arms. If you don't think that they are the "well
organized militia" post who you think is so we can discuss another organization that should take on this role.
So you have some ideas from me. So who is today's "well organized militia"? I say it is the Guard people. I don't like how they get activated and
used as active duty troops since that wouldn't be the way I use them. They should be used in CONUS period. If you want to go overseas go active,
otherwise stay Guard.
If you get rid of the Guard who will become the "well organized militia"?
Who makes up these "well organized militias" today? This is where things get interesting. Normal citizens make up the Guard so they should be able
to have arms as it says in the Constitution. So does this mean that only the folks in the "well organzied militia" should have this right?
I say yes since they are here to protect the state. I know many citizens want to "keep and bear arms", but this is where interpreting the
Constitution gets interesting. People who make up the "well organzied militia" are needed to protect the state. That doesn't include everyone in
the state.
Back when the Constitution was written there wasn't any National Guard so this makes sense when you have to deal with the way things were back then.
If you look at it this way then this should be a no brainer.
I think that we have been off track for many years since we do have "well organzied militias" in every state, terriroty, and in DC. The Guard takes
on this role. Tell me if any other person fits this definition, that is if you agree that the Guard is the best and only definition of a "well
organized militia" today.
So what do you people think? This may seem simple to me but I know that the non-Guard gun owners think they are part of a "well organzied militia".
We must define what a "well organized militia" is and when that happens there will be no choice since we'll know who the militia is today. This
leads to more questions such as active duty folks gun ownership, but that is for another thread.
|
This ruling could effect many states, if ruled its a right of the people as the founders have told us, then the states can't trump it meaning they
can no longer INFRINGE our rights..
The state has the power to create laws, regulations ect, regarding the issues within the respective state so long as those laws, regulations, ect
don't go against the constitution..
the Second amendments meaning is clear in and of itself regardless of what the anti gun crowd spews in efforts to strip free men of their liberty,
however it becomes even clearer when you read its purpose by the men who actually wrote it...
I have no doubt that if the Supreme Court is just and is not corrupt by the elites, then they will rule in favor of the people, those anti gun
entities in d.c and the Brady bunch are foolish for pushing to get this into the higher courts, because the Supreme Court will most surely look into
the federalist papers and other related documents showing the intent of the second amendment and who the founders said applies when interpreting
this.
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people
with arms."
James Madison, The Federalist Papers.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188.
"Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest."
From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775.
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a
strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable
the people to resist and triumph over them."
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court.
"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include 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."
Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment.
"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the
difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence
be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788.
"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788.
"The great object is, that every man be armed. [...] Every one who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788.
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience;
or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."
Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789.
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at
this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment
guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. [...] The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common
defense."
Majority Supreme Court opinion in "U.S. vs. Miller" (1939),
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788.
"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as 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, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188.
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience;
or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston,
1850).
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot
enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that
can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people
perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution
of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
"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...[T]he 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."
Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
"Whereas, 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; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select
militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no
wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let
them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356.
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to
invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17,
1789.
"The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained
to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."
James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789.
" ... but if 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 use of arms, who stand ready to
defend their rights ..."
Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.
[edit on 20-11-2007 by C0le]
|
reply to post by NJ Mooch
I doubt that we will get a reasonable response from the courts on this, considering past track record. But, the implication, since this amendment
predates the Guard Forces as we know them, should be clear. The militia was to be called from the common citizens of the state.
The militia was never, at that time, imagined as registered group or formal organization, but as the pool from which the states could draw talent for
needs in time of distress.
As to "well regulated", the common sense approach to this phrase is that these were to be people, because there had never been a ban on the right to
bear arms, such as there was in England, who had in their possession the firearms needed to defend the Constitution and the local rights of states. In
this sense "regulated" should be taken as normal, or average citizen.
Now, I seriously doubt that anyone will take a historical viewpoint, so I cannot think that such points as original meaning will have much bearing on
this case.
|
Unfortunately this could be the case, the status quo is wrong as it goes against the constitution, but they may in fact rule in favor of the status
quo.... thus imho, making the court illegitment.
Ive said it on various boards and now this one, though a ruling in favor of the people would be preferred, the ruling by the court in either direction
is of little importance or meaning to me, I'm a free man ruled by no man, no majority, and no government, i mind my own business and never try to
force my own personal views on things on others through law, its wrong and un American.
What some one does, owns, says, or believes, is their business and their business alone, Its ok to disagree we don't have to like any of it, but
unless they are violating your individual rights, leave them the hell alone..
I know what my rights as a free man are, they are simple, be free and don't violate the liberties and freedoms of another, its really that simple.
The ruling if it goes south, will be the final line the sand, Those who are true patriots will stand, Those who believe free men should be free, will
say enough, and that will be the day when the people once again prove that the spirit of resistance still lives.
|
