If SCOTUS rules on the 2nd


PDA






Synergy
April 29, 2008, 03:24 PM
and declares the 2nd is only for a well-regulated militia. What would constitute the formation of regional militias? Couldn't a private militia be formed?

This cartoon brought up the question
http://img.timeinc.net//time/cartoons/20080321/cartoons_06.jpg

If you enjoyed reading about "If SCOTUS rules on the 2nd" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
blackcash88
April 29, 2008, 03:42 PM
We're screwed...

ConstitutionCowboy
April 29, 2008, 03:47 PM
Prohibition of the formation of a private "militia" would be up to state law. I can't name any particular states off the top of my head, but some do prohibit such formations that are not directly under the control of the civil authority. Damned shame, too.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

geekWithA.45
April 29, 2008, 04:05 PM
I'm particularly amused that poor Joe. K. Normal had to join the Redcoats....

Henry Bowman
April 29, 2008, 04:07 PM
I'm particularly amused that poor Joe. K. Normal had to join the Redcoats....That struck me too. It may reveal how little understanding the artist (a newspaper political cartoonist) has of the subject.

El Tejon
April 29, 2008, 04:15 PM
Did not some colonial militias wear red?:confused:

hugh damright
April 29, 2008, 04:28 PM
If the federal government says that the 2nd Amendment only applies to well-regulated militia, I reckon they will be talking about blue coats. I can't see the federal government acting to protect forces such as private/county/state militia.

romma
April 29, 2008, 05:07 PM
One man Militia,,, right here!

CannonFodder
April 29, 2008, 05:12 PM
That struck me too. It may reveal how little understanding the artist (a newspaper political cartoonist) has of the subject.

To the contrary. He is probably making the point that back in the Founders' day, the British would have said that Her Majesty's Army is the only fighting force in the room professional enough to use their weapons and that if the colonists wanted to use guns, they should join up... you know... if they wanted to shoot assault muskets and the like.

The-Fly
April 29, 2008, 05:16 PM
by existing federal law, all adults from age 18-45 are part of the militia.

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/gunconst.htm

Henry Bowman
April 29, 2008, 05:32 PM
At least he didn't use a "blue helmet."

SomeKid
April 29, 2008, 06:13 PM
If needed, I guess I could always start the Browncoats.

Aguila Blanca
April 29, 2008, 06:26 PM
Did not some colonial militias wear red?
Yes. More importantly, the cartoon is signed as originating in the Hartford Courant. I assume that must be Hartford, Connecticut. The nearest thing Connecticut has to a "state guard" (and they are listed as being a state guard) is the two companies of Governor's foot guard and two companies of Governor's horse guard. And they still wear uniforms just like the one in the cartoon.

The Governor's footguard band played at my graduation from a Connecticut college many years ago. They were all OLD men, pudgy, not especially well uniformed ("costumed" would seem the more appropriate description rather than "uniformed"), and in general presented a rather clownish spectacle.

It's been a long time since I've had to think about that sorry sight. Too bad you reminded me ...

http://www.governorsfootguard.com/

blackcash88
April 29, 2008, 06:49 PM
Yeah, but the cool thing about being a member of the footguard is they can shoot for free at any of the state/police facilities. I am not a member.

slabuda
April 30, 2008, 12:03 AM
Hhhhmm lets say thats the way it falls, although I doubt it will, in that we need to be part of an organized and well regulated militia. I think we all agree the US military is a standing army and not a militia.

That being the case as a member of the US military you are expressly forbidden by the UCMJ to join or be part of a militia (dont remember the article but it in there someplace). This would effectively ban and disarm all members of the US military from owning firearms.

W.E.G.
April 30, 2008, 12:13 AM
by existing federal law, all adults from age 18-45 are part of the militia.

I guess that means I'm back to the days of having to lie about my age. :o

Jeff White
April 30, 2008, 12:27 AM
The militia argument is a non-starter. The constitution gives congress the the power to equip the militia. How about a law that says: The militia of the United States will consist of all able bodied persons between the ages of 17 and 60 who are not members of the armed forces or the National Guard of the states. the militia shall be equipped with shovels and brooms to provide service to the nation in time of war or natural disaster. ??

The militia is a way to conscript the population into government service. While there is no federal law against a private military force, 28 states have laws against them. The Supreme Court ruled that the states have the power to regulate (and ban if they so desire) private military organization in Presser v. Illinois in the 1890s.

If by some stretch the USSC would rule that arms were only available to the militia, it would be the end of individual RKBA.

Jeff

jrfoxx
April 30, 2008, 01:33 AM
Prohibition of the formation of a private "militia" would be up to state law. I can't name any particular states off the top of my head, but some do prohibit such formations that are not directly under the control of the civil authority. Damned shame, too.

Sadly, I'm pretty sure thats the case here in OR., although I recall the law being vague enough, as is typical of laws, to be open to both "loopholes" and abuse by the govt.

On the plus side, we DO have the Oregon State Defense Force, which is the state's/Governor's legal state "millitia", and they are surprisingly large, and quite active in training with the NG, and in the community with search and rescue, guarding NG bases/armories when the Guard is low on staffing due to deployments, CERT emergency work, disaster relief, etc. I will be signing my papers with them myself tomorrow afternoon over lunch with the local LtCol. Battalion Commander. It even comes with a promotion for me, as thier lowest rank is SGT (E-5), and I got out of the Navy at E-4 (intentionally bombed my E-5 exam since I knew I was getting out a month after the promotion would have taken effect. I'd rather see someone staying in get the promo, and not have the slot wasted for 6mo on me.) So y'all maggots can start calling me "Sarge" Wed. night (although Petty Officer did have a nice ring to it too ;)).:D

All that said, Jeff White give the right answer/info on the private millita "loophole" idea, IMHO

DSAPT9
April 30, 2008, 06:58 AM
Idaho just changed its law to state that pretty much all of its citizens are a part of the state militia.
Idaho Statutes
TITLE 46
MILITIA AND MILITARY AFFAIRS
CHAPTER 1
STATE MILITIA -- ORGANIZATION
AND STAFF
46-103. STATE MILITIA -- DIVISION INTO CLASSES. The militia of the state
of Idaho shall be divided into three (3) classes, to wit:
The national guard, the organized militia, and the unorganized militia.
The national guard shall consist of enlisted personnel between the ages of
seventeen (17) and sixty-four (64), organized and equipped and armed as
provided in the national defense act, and of commissioned officers between the ages of eighteen (18)and sixty-four (64) years, who shall be appointed and commissioned by the governor as commander-in-chief, in conformity with the provisions of the national defense act, the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, and as authorized by the provisions of this act. The organized militia shall include any portion of the unorganized militia called into service by the governor, and not federally recognized. The unorganized militia shall include all of the militia of the state of Idaho not included in the national guard or the organized militia.


http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=460010003.K

mack
April 30, 2008, 11:57 PM
If the supreme court rules that way, then it is just time to ignore the courts ruling and the court.

blackcash88
May 1, 2008, 02:03 PM
Mack, it's not that easy just to "ignore" the ruling. If SCOTUS rules against an individual right and gun bans start coming down the road, be prepared to see dealers, ranges, ammo importers, etc go the way of the dodo.

If you enjoyed reading about "If SCOTUS rules on the 2nd" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!