Scorpiusdeus
member
After reading all the replies it seems to me that while many of us may not like the idea, we have not yet found it to be unconstitutional.
Is that accurate at this point?
Is that accurate at this point?
The constitution says nothing about the right to privacy, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I always thought that is what the 9th amendment was about, a liberty catch all.
They could under the guise of organizing, arming and training the militia ... require you to provide them with your inventory of weapons and ammunition that are available for militia use and keep them appraised of where it is stored so it can be accessed in case they needed to call out the militia. How else do you know who to call up?
I've said this many times here, and people just don't get it: The militia is not a check on the government, the militia is a means for the government to stay in power. The people don't call out the militia, an official of the government, either the governor of a state or the president calls out the militia.
“Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” ~ James Madison
“Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped.” ~ Alexander Hamilton
“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which might be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” ~ Tench Coxe
“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 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.” ~ Noah Webster
“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
The Supreme Court already decided in Presser v. Illinois in 1886, that the government had the right to outlaw private military organizations.
Say you could have an M4A1 or an M240, keep it an ammunition in your house. However you would only be permitted to get it out of it's government approved safe annually for an inspection and only be permitted to fire it on Unorganized Militia Muster Day which they might conveniently forget to fund...ever.
Calling Jeff a statist is just scurrilous. I know Jeff, he's as ardent a defender of freedom as anyone here.
Do you truly believe that FREEDOM and political LIBERTY exists because the Government hasn't gotten around to outlawing it...yet?
Are you such a statist that you believe the Opposite of what our Declaration of Independence says?
They would call forth the Militia which would assemble bearing arms supplied by themselves. Read the Miller case again. Read the Federalist papers where our founders spoke about the whole body of the people being armed and constitute a force greater than any standing army.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Free Men possess arms, Jeff. Get used to the Idea! They possess arms because they are free men. This is what defines them as free men. Being Free Men they need NO PERMISSION. They have a duty and responsibility to be capable of bearing arms for defense of themselves and by extension, their community and state to which they have familial and emotional bonds. No statute need be written to underscore this RIGHT. It is inherent and self evident. Again, I suggest you read the Declaration of Independence again.
eff old buddy, you keep saying it because YOU don't get it. When good men, brave men, stood up against the Lawful Authority on the 19th of April in the year 1775, they id did so IN VIOLATION of current statute law. They did so in absolute DEFIANCE. The Lawful Authority at the time, marched out to Lexington that morning to accomplish something. They weren't out for a morning stroll and found a group of "militia nuts" playing soldier.
It did not address the issue of unorganized militia drilling and training on private land. I suggest you read David Kopel's comments on the case... http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/Pre...s-Illinois.htm
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. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject.
I do not need, and any reasonable man does not need, a Supreme court case in order to understand these principles. I understand that you personally are a member of the State Power Structure and therefor you will not argue in favor of limiting the State's, and thence your own, power.
I don't know him except through his posts, but I have never seen anything he wrote that makes him out to be anything but a defender of freedom. Just because he tells you something you don't like, does not mean he is defending that practice. He is just telling you the way it really is. There is no utopia we live in, only the real world. We can make it better or worse, maybe, but we have to live in the reality zone.Calling Jeff a statist is just scurrilous. I know Jeff, he's as ardent a defender of freedom as anyone here.
ProficientRifleman said: I did not call him a statist. I asked him if he is one.
ProficientRifleman said: Are you such a statist that you believe . . . .
I understand that you personally are a member of the State Power Structure and therefor you will not argue in favor of limiting the State's, and thence your own, power.
How is this different from many other government databases?
How is this any different from the current situation? When you buy a firearm from a retailer in Texas (and most states), you are required to register it.
Show me the part of the Bill of Rights that forbids the government to have a map. I don't think there is any constitutional issue here.
So are you saying it is impossible for any government map, or database, to be unconstitutional?How is this different from many other government databases?
So are you saying it is impossible for any government map, or database, to be unconstitutional?
I disagree; maps are made for reasons, and the reasons could render the map unconstitutional.
How about a map of the homes and meeting places of NAACP organizers, maintained at the behest of the KKK?
My personal opinion (and, one hopes, SCOTUS’ soon-to-be opinion) is that government actions involving gun ownership should be examined with strict scrutiny, and I cannot easily see a constitutionally acceptable reason for such a map; therefore it would be a priori unconstitutional.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,
Dallas239 said: A national registry of printing presses would likely be unconstitutional. Even if everyone was allowed to have them. A requirement of government permission to buy a printing press (or say a tax) would likely be unconstitutional.
One could argue the "Right to Privacy" angle
illspirit said: Arbitrarily picking some group of people and mapping them out would facilitate further discrimination of the targeted group by neighbors, employers, and such.
BullfrogKen said:You mean like say . . . registries of those convicted of sex offences?
Dallas239 said: A national registry of printing presses would likely be unconstitutional. Even if everyone was allowed to have them. A requirement of government permission to buy a printing press (or say a tax) would likely be unconstitutional.
Are you sure?
I can't go out and start my own radio station and broadcast over the airwaves without a license. I can't start my own broadcast television network without a license. Unless things have changed since I last knew about them, even ham radio operators have to be licensed to broadcast on certain frequencies.
In the United States I can't contract to manufacture or purchase a high quality printing press capable of reproducing US currency without the government knowing I have it, even if I have no intentions to print money on it.
If I want to run a non-profit, or a church, I have to provide the names of its officers, where they live, how much they're compensated, and apply to qualify for non-profit status. Lobbying firms must be registered with the government.
It's easy to take a soapbox stance and hearken back to principles and concepts of liberty. Where the rubber meets the road, it becomes grey, and government does in fact regulate things that the Constitution says, "Congress shall not . . . "
Dallas239 said:If you can tell me which law you are referring to, I could give a more informed answer.BullfrogKen said: In the United States I can't contract to manufacture or purchase a high quality printing press capable of reproducing US currency without the government knowing I have it, even if I have no intentions to print money on it.