[confed sailor]

Its rather amusing how shysters quote the law to us (the laymen of the Republic). and selectively choose their words from that enlightened and concise document known as the United States Code.


TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > Sec. 311.

Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes


(a)

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males (thats us) 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

Now, im no lawyer but if this is written in english, with proper syntax and all that good stuff applying, that means that we (men of the Republic) are in the militia.

"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. "

now if [militia=all male citizens 17 to 45]

and the militia's are mandated in the constitution, a document i have sworn to support and defend, to be well regulated, and not infringed.

logically, and this may be a streach of imagination for some who are poisoned by liberal psuedo-thought,

a well regulated militia is an armed one, for an unarmed militia is more like a drinking club.

and we the people, 17 to 45 year old men specifically, (sorry ladies and 46 year olds and up, im doing my best here!), are the militia.......

THEN WE NEED OUR GUNS.

[Ian]

[Devil's Advocate]The Constitution (particularly the 2nd Amendment) is a dangerous and outdated relic from a distant era. It doesn't have any place in today's society, and should not be used to dictate limits of the law. Governments know what is best for everyone, and so the should be the only entity with weapons.

PS - By voicing your desire to have guns as part of an armed non-governmental body, you have revealed yourself to be a threat to society. We'll now declare you a terrorist, and throw you in some rotting pit in Guantanamo Bay.[/Devil's Advocate]

[unixguy]

I posted this in the "molon labe" thread, too, but also seems appropriate here.

Federalist paper #46 (http://law.ou.edu/hist/federalist/federalist.40.html#fed46) also draws a distinction between a regular army and the militia.

[Wildalaska]

Shysters.....

Make sure ya plead yer own case if ya ever get busted, dont you be hiring a shyster.....

PS your analysis of the US code and the Cobstituion are lacking...but then again, what do I know, Im just a gun owning real shyster, not an amatuer one...

WildnewconcepttheamatuershysterAlaska

[316SS]

Ah yes.

The Law may only be properly interpreted by the initiated. The tiny intellects of the amateurs cannot encompass the subtle nuances and labrynthine reasoning of the US Code. Don't get me started on the Constitution. Only a fool would read a perfectly straightforward English sentence and assume that it means exactly what it says. Tres naive.

Never represent yourself: good advice; you must fight bullplop with bullplop, and hire a lawyer.

316SS

[DMF]

WA,

I was going to make similar comments about representing himself, but you beat me to the punch.

[El Tejon]

The RKBA is far broader than Title 10.

Statements of purpose do not define constitutional rights, see e.g. First Amendment. Individuals owning and carrying guns give rise to a militia. However, the militia, however defined, does not define a constitutional right.

*edit to "than", geez, fingers have had too much coffee today:D

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Law For Lawyers
Its rather amusing how shysters quote the law to us (the laymen of the Republic). and selectively choose their words from that enlightened and concise document known as the United States Code.

The United States code is written by senior Federal Agency Administrators, Congressional Staffers, Congressmen, Senators, with input from senior experts in various fields in the private sector. The great majority of these people are NOT lawyers.

True, the fact is that these laws are so badly written that the average citizen needs to hire an interperter, i.e. lawyer, and that's contrary to the American ideal. But the blame lies with your Congressman and Senators who vote to enact these incomprehensible sections of the US code, not with lawyers in general.

Else, please explain how the average attorney that you find in the Yellow Pages has had any effect on how these sections of the US Code are written?

[confed sailor]

luke i never said once that they wrote the USC

they simply quote it to us.

and as for my analysis, im a navy nuke sailor, we dont have to room to be wishy-washy, or get lost in shades of meaning and intent.

for if we mess up something, Groton, Norfork, St Mary's, Bangor, San Diego, Pearl harbor and other places like that become rather unpleasant

[sendec]

So women are second class citizens, according to a strict interpretation?

:rolleyes:

How many other 200+ year old documents will you put this level of faith in? A 1700's surgical textbook?

And frankly, get initiated. I am not real fond of the legal profession at large, but if I am going to second guess them at their area of expertise, well, credibility speaks for itself. I dont know what some of you do for a living, but by this logic I should be able to become an expert in your field by reading some literature and thinking great thoughts........

[Justin]

Seems to me that the laws of any fair and just nation would be easy to read and understand for any citizen possessing that bare essential of literacy.

After all, how is it that 'ignorance of the law' isn't a justifiable defense in court when the only way to be educated in the law is to be a certified legal scholar?


</just one legal ignoramus posing a question>

[TheEgg]

How many other 200+ year old documents will you put this level of faith in?

How many other 200+ year old documents are supposed to be the supreme law of the land?

And by the way, the amendment process did just fine for addressing things like equal rights under the law.

[fedlaw]

From Dictionary.com: Shyster:
[Probably alteration of German Scheisser, son of a b...h, b.st..d, from scheissen, to defecate, from Middle High German schzen, from Old High German skzzan. See skei- in Indo-European Roots.]

1) Every profession has its bad actors. Law is no exception.

2) Some of the finest people I have ever met are lawyers.

3) Some of us actually believe that the Constitution means what it says, as in, What don't you understand about "shall not be infringed"?

4) 98% of the lawyers ruin it for the rest of us.

[Cosmoline]

Every law and every part of the Constitution must be interpreted to have any meaning. This is what the lawyer haters fail to realize. In spite of the Second there are laws infringing the right to keep and bear arms which would still be allowed even under a very pro-gun interpretation. The prohibition on felons in custody or other prisoners carrying arms, for example. Or the prohibitions strictly limiting when and where a firearm may be discharged. There are no absolutes in real life. You can blame lawyers for that, but you might as well curse the sea because of the tides.

[carpettbaggerr]

PS your analysis of the US code and the Cobstituion are lacking... Expand on your critique, if you please. Is his analysis merely simplistic, or actually incorrect [as you see it]?

[Cosmoline]

Well the problem with relying on the "well regulated militia" clause as the functional aspect of the Second Amendment rather than an explanation of purpose is that it limits the RKBA to those who are technically part of the unorganized militias at the federal and state level. This includes only individuals of a certain age, and often excludes all females. It seems more reasonable to me to read the "militia" clause as secondary and the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" as primary. After all the Second does not say "the right of the unorganized militias..." it says "the right of the PEOPLE," a word which has specific meaning in the BOR. "PEOPLE" signals an individual right, not a group right or a right based on membership in a militia.

So in other words, given than unorganized armed militias are a central aspect of national defense, it's important that the right of ALL citizens to KBA be preserved.

[DesertEagle613]

That said, it woud be a fun way to reduce some anti to sputtering incoherence :D

[confed sailor]

to WildAlaska: im sure my analysis of the cobstitution is lacking since I for one have not the slightest clue in the world what a Cobstitution is. however,,, if you feel that my analysis is flawed im more than open to constructive critiques, but just pointing out my flawed reasoning is next to worthless.

to sendec: under a strict jeffersonian interpritation of the document, yes the women are out of luck.

not my fault, i didnt write it.
if that makes you mad, go cuss at the founding fathers tombstones.

and unlike a text from the 1700's on surgery, the constitution has not been superceded by new editions,

sorry there is no US Constitution v2.0, no US CON XP.

All we have is the original, and until we get Constitution ME, I will continue to support and defend that inspired, yet flawed, but everlasting piece of parchment that makes you and me and our nation what it is; American.

[Gray Peterson]

If we're talking about the second amendment, we should probably look at it in the light of the times.

"A Well Regulated Militia".

Well regulated in that parlance means "well equipped". Militia tends to be synonymous with "infantry soldier". They often carry rifles, handguns, and shotguns.

The militia clause is merely a secondary clause, and a limiting clause too. This keeps from the skewed perspectives of liberals who say rather irratically that we want the right to possess nuclear weapons individual, a rather ridiculous statement.

As for the exclusion of women and the age limits, remember that 10USC310 was written over two centuries ago in it's earliest form. Presumably things like the 5th amendment, the 14th amendment, and 19th amendment would clearly expand the militia to females.

[El Tejon]

confed, Title 10 is a statute; it is trumped by the constitution. The Supremes have held that "the People" in the BoR means individuals, male and female, adults and minors.:)

I think what Wilddon'tspeakformeKirkyounumbnutsAlaska may be getting at is that by focusing on the "militia" one is making the mistake that the antis do--mistakenly (although often deliberate) look to the dependent clause and not the main clause.:)

Use my First Amendment analogy: the Supremes have held that its statement of purpose ("to petition the Government for a redress of grievances") does not define the right. Thus, the Second Amendment's statement of purpose ("a well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State"), does not define the right to arms to only members of the unorganized militia as defined in Title 10.

I'm glad you are reading the source material. Is there anything in particular that you are interested in?

Don't mind WA he was mauled by a bear on his commute and gets grumpy.:D

[Standing Wolf]

Only a fool would read a perfectly straightforward English sentence and assume that it means exactly what it says.

I've been called worse than a fool before.

[sendec]

Cosmoline,

Well said, I actually agree with you.

[confed sailor]

well tejon, im was simply tring to shoot holes in the anti belife that since we the people arnt in the NG we dont deserve guns.

pardon my legal ignorance, i think ill go back to my nuke reactors

[Art Eatman]

Out of curiosity, has anybody ever read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights? Where it explains the purpose of the BOR, its raison d'etre?

It speaks to restraining the central government against abuse of its powers.

The central government, if entering into an abusive condition toward the citizenry, would require cooperation among the judiciary, the congressional people and the administration--else the abuse could not occur. In such event, the ballot box would necessarily be replaced by the cartridge box and the appropriate firearms. Thus the Second Amendment.

Regardless, the BOR is a package: It is erroneous to think that one can support some but not all. The amendments are not for picking and choosing...

Art

[El Tejon]

Confed, well, the Supremes ruled a while ago that the National Guard is not the militia. Always a good one to throw in their faces.:cool:

[Cosmoline]

Well said, I actually agree with you.

:D

[RevDisk]

Confed, well, the Supremes ruled a while ago that the National Guard is not the militia. Always a good one to throw in their faces.

Which ruling was that out of curiousity?

[Wildalaska]

I think what Wilddon'tspeakformeKirkyounumbnutsAlaska may be getting at is that by focusing on the "militia" one is making the mistake that the antis do--mistakenly (although often deliberate) look to the dependent clause and not the main clause.

Actually Kirk what I mean to say again and again and again it that by playing the "well its in plain english" game ignores 600 plus years of Anglo-American jurisprudence that must be consulted and intepreted before one can say exactly what "plain english" is...

Contrary to popular thinking, establishing the meaning of a statute involves more than just reading a dictionary...

PS..as an aside, I can remember getting involved in an Estate case years ago where my research entailed me reading cases for the 1700s with the books falling apart as I read them...

WildimpleaderdemurrerAlaska

[confed sailor]

since when has a court ruling ever made a dent in these people, these masters of doublethink, we could bury them in paper rulings, and still the duckspeak would ramble on.

[El Tejon]

Rev, that was Perpich. Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990) (unanimous decision) (Supreme Court recognizes that National Guard is not a militia, but part of the United States military. Important to individual rights analysis as Court failed to mention Second Amendment at all).

*Edit, I was in the coffee shoppe earlier this morning and could not remember cite.:D

[carpettbaggerr]

by playing the "well its in plain english" game ignores 600 plus years of Anglo-American jurisprudence that must be consulted and intepreted before one can say exactly what "plain english" is...
Ahhh, yes....click here (http://www.constitution.org/lrev/rodell/woe_unto_you_lawyers.htm)


Read it all -- Shakespeare was right

[SteelyDan]

As a lawyer, I will state that if anyone (lawyer or not) claims to know, in absolute terms, what the Second Amendment REALLY means, you should just nod politely and move on. Over the years, I've read a dozen or more well-researched, scholarly articles on the subject, and there simply is no concensus. Unless and until the US Supreme Court tackles the issue head on, the reality is that we can only make educated guesses.

Plus, as a 48-year old, I'm really struggling with the idea that I somehow "lost" a fundamental constitutional right three years ago. Can't quite buy into that concept.

[Wildalaska]

Ahhh, yes....click here

Using that as your sole understanding of the legal system is the same as figuring out the tides by watching the water run down the drain in your bathtub...


But hey, everyone is entitled to be ininformed in their life


WildpsifshakspeareisrightimwaitingAlaska

[chas_martel]

RE: Lawyers that insist and or imply that non-lawyers are incapable
of the "nuances" involved in interpreting law.

My attorney wife, of 15 years, insist those type of "lawyers" are
plauged with the same sort of problems as Freud spoke of.

Namely they are sexually immature, of low self esteem and pin-headed.

[316SS]

Wildalaska wrote:

Using that as your sole understanding of the legal system is the same as figuring out the tides by watching the water run down the drain in your bathtub...

But hey, everyone is entitled to be ininformed in their life


Fred Rodell predicted you'd say that! :neener:

316

[Justin]

I find it rather peculiar, and a bit telling, that no one adressed my original message.

[316SS]

Justin-

Step 1. Found a nation on simple, fair, just principles written in plain English.

Step 2. Allow a legal establishment with a vested interest (pardon the legal jargon) to corner the market on "interpreting" said principles.

Step 3. "600 plus years of Anglo-American jurisprudence that must be consulted and intepreted before one can say exactly what "plain english" is" stands between you, me, and a "fair and just nation".

316

[Wildalaska]

Namely they are sexually immature, of low self esteem and pin-headed.

isnt that nice....what a cute way to flame....

Maybe your wife needs to find a better profession. I could alternatively analyze her, but this is the High Road...

Step 3. "600 plus years of Anglo-American jurisprudence that must be consulted and intepreted before one can say exactly what "plain english" is" stands between you, me, and a "fair and just nation".

Golly I forget, perhaps you should join Alec Baldwin and Johhnyy Depp and all the others who fled this land of horror...:)

WildthebattleofwitsAlaska

[Art Eatman]

Ahem.

Calm. Down.

:), Art

[R.H. Lee]

The language of law is very precise. The purpose is to say exactly what you mean, and exclude any other meanings. This takes some education and experience. Problems as to the intent of the language arise, and this is why there are courts, to interpret the legal language. Unfortunately, the role of interpretation has been all too often hijacked into torturous meanings by activist judges in order to further some political agenda.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've read a dozen or more well-researched, scholarly articles on the subject, and there simply is no concensus.

And given the prevailance of "legal realism" in the law schools, there never will be such a consensus, until there's a consensus as to what it OUGHT to mean... since way to many legal scholars are committed to denying that laws have any objective meaning apart from what lawyers want them to mean.

[SteveS]

And given the prevailance of "legal realism" in the law schools, there never will be such a consensus, until there's a consensus as to what it OUGHT to mean... since way to many legal scholars are committed to denying that laws have any objective meaning apart from what lawyers want them to mean.

This type of behavior is not confined to law schools (or lawyers). I doubt you would be able to find any large group of people that would agree on the meaning of what a particular law OUGHT to mean (unless it is a very basis law). If oyu start throwing in words like "reasonable" and "due process" you leave things open to different interpretations.