Martial law

I keep looking for times when martial law was declared in the United States. I am not coming up with anything for Katrina or anything in recent memory.

Click to expand...

Agreed. This thread is titled "Martial Law". I think what this thread is lacking is an understanding of what "martial law" means, and who has the authority to declare it.

Deep South, you've only noted one side of the equation by looking at officer deaths (of which the vast majority had nothing to do with any planned special unit action). Most officer deaths come in circumstances where lethal violence is not anticipated..... If you could ask a survivor who narrowly missed dying I'd direct you to that young cop in Ferguson, Mo so that you could ask him if he anticipated a full out assault that almost succeeded...

The side of the equation you neglected is the one that involves the deaths of armed folks and the folks who live around or with them that were not killed because of carefully planned sudden action.... Folks who swore they'd never be taken without a fight who chose not to go that route when they were literally overwhelmed by carefully thought out and planned operations. I was never a member of my small department's team. I functioned on the street in every job possible as both a sergeant -then a lieutenant in a hundred man department. I saw first hand time after time bad actors taken down who were well armed but never reached for a single weapon since the team had them down and covered before they could respond. Yes, we had some notable failures but they were the rare instance (and usually because the planning phase didn't account for all the possibilities). To give you some idea of the scope of those actions, in some cases our unit was going up against organized police impersonators (in fake SRT gear and well armed). In that instance one of the bad actors (with a heavy past) fired a few shots -but was taken down by a double tap of 9mm from a fully suppressed MP5 by a very well trained officer. Unfortunately the bad guy survived - but the point is that absent this kind of unit a very bad outcome could reasonably be expected.... and that's my point. The rise of these kind of units (ours was entirely volunteer with every man and woman holding other jobs, keeping their turnout gear in their vehicles at all times) has been a direct response to a world where para military tactics by criminals have grown continuously.

Now we come to something that angers me every time I think about it..... and makes me very glad I'm long out of that kind of work. The rise of anti police political groups, the politicians who support and are supported by them, and the sleazy news media that only tells one side of the story in many of our larger cities these days. They portray every aspect of policing as some sort of evil conspiracy bent on taking away "the people's rights". Look around and see the places where politicians have actually gained elected office by making these less than honest claims. Then note how, when sudden anarchy occurs in one town or other, while news media and the kind of folks that hold Bill Ayres in high regard run rampant destroying property and attacking cops are actually praised.... That's when I first heard the terms "militarization of the police" and other exaggerations designed to undercut the only folks that can be counted on to stand up for decent communities and the rule of law - not mob violence. The worst thing I know of is for leaders of various communities to go out of their way to destroy the trust that young officers have in the folks they work for by their words and deeds. Why should any young officer risk his/her own safety and the welfare of their own families if they're certain that they'll be accused of doing something wrong if it benefits the "leaders of their communities" who are actually working to support those that elect them - no matter how badly they want to destroy those very institutions...

I"ll get down off of my soapbox now - note one more item to consider. Most police departments have civilian observer programs where any citizen (as long as you're not the latest incarnation of John Dillinger...) can spend a shift on the streets with an officer to see how they actually do the job. Generally you can pick the day and the shift -but you don't get to pick which officer you ride with. It might be the most boring few hours ever - or you might end up praying that you survive whatever goes down.... Some won't learn a thing but many might actually get a look at the reality that news media, TV, and movies rarely show..... and come away with a different point of view.

The Alaskan said:

You guys need to rethink what martial law is.

Martial is law is just that, military law. Civil authority is replaced by military authority. They can do it, they have done it, and it is completely legal.

The 2nd amendment does not exist after marital law has been declared.

It amazes me how people will invoke "The Constitution" like it is some sort of magical force field.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. Read and learn:

Ex parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2 (1866)

In a nutshell, martial law is only "legal" if there is no functioning civil authority.

X-Rap said:

So many comments are made from a 9/10 prospective without considering how quickly interpretations can change when the public demands that we be kept safe.
The Patriot Act is a perfect example. Let our country come under frequent attack that include small arms and I fear there will be a much harsher reaction than what we saw when they used jet airliners.
In the case of NOLA and Katrina I believe it was a case of the mayor and police chief believing it was better to beg forgiveness than ask permission so they ignored what was law and did what they wanted in accordance with their beliefs and philosophy regarding personal weapons.
I don't see it being different if we start to see what happened in Paris.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but the Constitution did not change after 9/11. The Constitution itself outlines the mechanisms to change it...and public fear and new interpretations based on that fear is not one of them.

lemaymiami said:

Those who've never been involved with police work cite the growth of '' Swat raids" over time as an example of "the militarization of the police" without having much of an idea at all just how this sort of unit came about -and it had little to do with any "militarization". It was the direct response to the level of threat that ordinary officers faced in confrontations with well armed individuals who had little compunction about killing to avoid being taken into custody.

Unlike a military operation where you aim to neutralize your opponent by whatever means necessary, policing operations are very restricted as to means and methods with the constant requirement to protect citizens caught up in bad situations (whether it's a violent individual threatening his/her own family or neighbors or heavily armed fairly professional bad actors with a grudge and a plan...).

Take warrant service as a "for instance", in my early years in law enforcement (early seventies) it was routine for a pair of detectives, maybe with one or two uniform officers to serve a warrant -without much in the way of thought or planning. Occasionally that sort of action can go horribly wrong. In one incident during that period three auto theft detectives, armed only with their sidearms in civilian clothes walked up to a small apartment building to talk to someone who'd just purchased a stolen car. It was mid-morning in a quiet neighborhood. In just a few moments the offender killled all three from ambush for the first one -then by quick assault for the remaining two (this was in south Florida before things went really bad a few years later...). Their names were Hodges, Curlette, and DeAzevedo - I had just worked with one of them a few weeks before (an auto theft case) so it was burned into my memory forever....

A few years later with the terrible rise of heavily armed drug dealers and all the related problems they caused (the Miami special, where neither side brings money or drugs -but both sides bring lots of guns...). this was the cocaine cowboy era in all its ugliness. As a response many agencies began to use their SWAT or SRT (our term) for any possibly hazardous warrant service... and guess what happened? Officer and civilian casualties in armed situations actually decreased (of course that's not what you'll ever hear in the news media or in a Quentin Tarrantino movie....). One of the greatest benefits of actually using a specific small unit for anything likely to involve an armed confrontation is that the more you use the team the better it gets (and the more disciplined and professional..). I'll tell you clearly, almost every officer I ever worked with would far rather avoid even the possibility of a shooting incident since the aftermath is nothing but trouble. In my own case I turned down an opportunity to lead our SRT because I'd already had one shooting and would never deliberately go down that road again if possible....

As I've already said, anyone that blathers on about the miltarization of the police has been listening to the wrong folks. I don't believe it a bit. Most of what you've seen is in fact a response to specific threats from many different sources. By the way there was a report on this site about a hit on a Massachusetts armory where an unknown amount and type of weapons were taken.... Things come full circle. This sort of stuff was happening back when I was in the police academy - all those years ago.... If I were a young officer in a big northern city today I'd be praying that a SWAT or SRT was standing by and available in today's climate....

Click to expand...

"The militarization of police" has nothing to do with the existence of SWAT teams, it has to do with how they are used and how the police conduct their day-to-day business. What worked for us as a military in Baghdad is simply not acceptable for law enforcement SOP in the United States.

Frank Ettin said:

Now that I've returned from my weekend on the Monterey Peninsula, it's time for your English lesson. Calling your statement to the effect that:

​

twaddle is not "ad hominem." "Ad hominem" means:

​

I made no comment about you personally. I contemptuously dismissed your comment.

Statements like "there is a school of thought" or "it's reported that" are particularly shabby rhetorical tricks insofar as they fail to cite or document the authority relied upon and thus don't permit testing of the claim. Such statements are, therefore, fully worthy of derision.

You fail to properly cite Boyd. Therefore, you've made it difficult for us to (1) find the case; and (2) know whether the Boyd v. U. S. one finds is the one you mean (there are a number of cases thus styled).

However, since we're apparently agreed that the case you mean is Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 29 L.Ed. 746, 6 S.Ct. 524 (1886), let's look at why it doesn't support your assertion that (post 68):

​

Boyd involved an action to seize certain goods allegedly fraudulently imported into the United States. To sustain the fraud allegations, the United States sought and obtained certain records and papers of the importer. The records and papers were obtained pursuant to a statute (116 U. S. 616, at 619 -- 620):

​

As the Court framed the question to be addressed (at 622):

​

The Court essentially found that under the circumstances of the Boyd the seizure of the importer's records and papers under the statute, in lieu of a warrant satisfying Fourth Amendment standards, was unreasonable.

Note that Boyd, has since been narrowed, even substantially eviscerated (see Edwin Hale v. William Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906); Oklahoma Press Pub Co v. Walling News Printing Co v. Same, 327 U.S. 186 (1946); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967); Osborn v. United States, 385 U.S. 323 (1966); Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967); Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192 (1927)).

Again, that case (Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298, 41 S.Ct. 261, 65 L.Ed. 647 (1921)) does support you.

What the Court dealt with in Gouled was specifically (255 U. S. 298, at 303):

​

The Court in Gouled also disallowed on Fifth Amendment grounds (purportedly based on Boyd) certain evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant.

But at the end of the day what those cases, as well as other cases in the substantial body of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, address is whether a search or seizure in a particular case, and under the circumstances presented, is or is not reasonable.

Presumably you're referring to the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857). If so, you mis-characterize the rulings of the Supreme Court. As summarized by the Library of Congress, in Dred Scott the Court ruled:

​

But that's not what the Emancipation Proclamation did (this link takes on to the text of the document).

Essentially, Lincoln (1) declared that certain States were in rebellion and identified those States; (2) declared that slaves held within those rebellious States were free; and (3) directed the executive departments of the United States government to recognize such persons a free persons.

The Emancipation Proclamation had no force or effect in the States not designated as being in rebellion against the United States. Nor was it ever tested in court, so it's not clear whether the Proclamation had any real effect.

Of course Dred Scott and the Emancipation Proclamation were mooted by the adoption of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Actually no. Those are good examples of folks who understood the real world and how to deal effectively in the real world. Certain Dick Heller was well guided by a group of very able lawyers and legal scholars.

The Rosa Parks story nicely illustrates how to accomplish social change.

• Rosa Parks had a long history of being actively involved in the organized Civil Rights Movement:
  ​
  
  
• At the time of her arrest Mrs. Parks was an adviser to the NAACP.
  
  
• On 1 December 1955, Rosa Parks was the third African-American since March of that year to be arrested for violating the Montgomery bus segregation law. One was Claudette Colvin, a 15-year-old girl who was arrested some nine months earlier. E. D. Nixon decided that Claudette would be a poor "poster-child" for a protest because she was unmarried and pregnant.
  
  
• The night of Mrs. Parks' arrest, Jo Ann Robinson, head of the Women's Political Council, printed and circulated a flyer throughout Montgomery's black community starting the call for a boycott of Montgomery's city buses.
  
  
• Martin Luther King, Jr., as president of the Montgomery Improvement Association and pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, together with other Black community leaders, then organized the boycott of the Montgomery bus system. That boycott reduced Black ridership (the bulk of the bus system's paying customers) of Montgomery city buses by some 90% until December of 1956 when the Supreme Court ruled that the bus segregation laws of Montgomery, Alabama were unconstitutional (Gayle v. Browder, 352 U.S. 903 (1956)).
  
  
• So the Rosa Parks incident is more than a matter of not moving to the back of the bus. Her arrest was part of a well orchestrated, well organized, multilayered program reflecting good planning and political acumen leading to a successful conclusion. If it had not been she would have just been another Black person arrested for violating that ordinance.
  
  
• Please note especially that prior to the Rosa Parks incident E. D. Nixon rejected one "arrestee" as standard bearer for the protect because of possible image problems.

You really need to get a better grasp of the facts.

Click to expand...

Frank,

I think any reader here can go back to post 61, and see what you have done here.

You provide me with an "English lesson" on the meaning of the term "ad hominem" by changing where the term appears in my response. It appears right after I quote you insinuating that I am out of touch with reality, and living in an imaginary world. Suggesting that the person espousing the opposing view of an argument is out of touch with reality and living in an imaginary world, so their arguments can be dismissed off-hand, is a great example of ad hominem.

Lincoln stands as a great example of my point. I have never met a legal scholar who didn't consider the Emancipation Proclamation to be in opposition to the Dred Scott decision (which I had named in an earlier post). You make it appear that those weren't in conflict by only stating part of what the court decided in Dred Scott v Sandford. There were several issues the court addressed. One of the key issues was the question of whether the 5th amendment's property rights clause, "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", applied to slave holders. The court ruled that it did, and that slaveholders could not be deprived of that property (slaves). By your own description of what the Emancipation Proclamation did, posted above, both item #2 and #3 are in direct opposition to the court's ruling.

The fact that Dick Heller had legal help does not dismiss or negate his example, as someone who saw a current law, believed it was unfair, fought it and changed it. The fact that Rosa Parks had a history of political activism, or a plan, does not alter the fact that she saw an unjust law, and she challenged it.

I feel like you insinuate that I have tried to make it hard for you to address the cases I have cited, "You fail to properly cite Boyd. Therefore, you've made it difficult for us to (1) find the case". I'm sorry if it appears that way, I will only point out that if one googles "boyd v united" it is the first thing that comes up, and one only need type "gouled" to get Gouled v united states. These were both prominent SCOTUS cases.

I said there was a "strong school of thought", I did not claim there was legal consensus, or that it was the prevailing legal theory today. If you read annotation 1 on the fourth amendment, you will find that paragraph 5 addresses this in some detail, and there are other cases cited, as well as Boyd and Gouled.
Quoted here, emphasis added:

"As noted above, the noteworthy disputes over search and seizure in England and the colonies revolved about the character of warrants. There were, however, lawful warrantless searches, primarily searches incident to arrest, and these apparently gave rise to no disputes. Thus, the question arises whether the Fourth Amendment's two clauses must be read together to mean that the only searches and seizures which are ''reasonable'' are those which meet the requirements of the second clause, that is, are pursuant to warrants issued under the prescribed safeguards, or whether the two clauses are independent, so that searches under warrant must comply with the second clause but that there are ''reasonable'' searches under the first clause which need not comply with the second clause. This issue has divided the Court for some time, has seen several reversals of precedents, and is important for the resolution of many cases. It is a dispute which has run most consistently throughout the cases involving the scope of the right to search incident to arrest. While the right to search the person of the arrestee without a warrant is unquestioned, how far afield into areas within and without the control of the arrestee a search may range is an interesting and crucial matter."
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment4/annotation01.html

I enjoy discussions like this, but have found that for them to be productive there needs to be an element of mutual respect, and honesty.

I have not really found either here. From your first response, I find a very condescending, and even contemptuous tone. I also think that it is disingenuous to only reference part of a ruling like Dred Scott v Sandford and pretend like that one part encompasses the entire ruling.

I joined this forum to learn more about firearms, and to be more informed on RKBA issues. I think I will get back to that.

I wish you a good day sir.

Spats McGee said:

Actually, your original statement was:

You then proceeded to hold up an almost 130-year-old case, overturned almost a half a century ago, as support for that statement. I'd hardly call that good support for the claim of a "strong school of thought," even if it says what you claim.

Believe it or not, I'm not just trying to bust your chops here. I understand that you're pretty new here, so you may not be familiar with how things ordinarily run here at THR, and, in particular, here in the Legal forum. Mind you, I'm not a moderator, but I'd like to give you the benefit of my having watched this forum for several years. I'll invite any THR moderator to correct me or edit my post if I've stepped out of line.

As you know, this is the Legal forum. It's not a place for activism. We have a separate forum for that. It's not really a place for speculation as to what the law should be, or what we want it to be. It's intended for discussion of the law as it stands today. Because of that, if you make a factual claim ("The law in Utah says X, Y and Z . . . "), you can reasonably be expected to back it up with reliable links and citations to authority. Don't sweat it if you can't create a citation that would meet the standards of the Blue Book (a citation reference manual for lawyers), but you need to be able to identify the case or statute sufficiently for everyone on the forum to find and read it for themselves. For cases, you need to be able to tell the forum things like the court in which a case was decided, the year, and the names of the parties involved. Something like "A 1961 case out of the Arkansas Supreme Court called 'Smith v. State.'" A snippet of facts about the case helps: "Smith v. State involved a Fourth Amendment challenge to the admission of the pistol with which he robbed a grocery store." For statutes, something like Ark. Code Ann. 5-73-120, found here: http://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/2010/title-5/subtitle-6/chapter-73/subchapter-1/5-73-120

Don't be afraid to back up your assertions, but don't be surprised if they're challenged, either.

Welcome to THR!

Click to expand...

Thank you for the heads-up. I hope my response above is suitable.

One thing though... if the legal forum isn't for speculation, maybe this thread should be somewhere else, as it is speculative in nature.

Quote:
Originally Posted by X-Rap View Post
So many comments are made from a 9/10 prospective without considering how quickly interpretations can change when the public demands that we be kept safe.
The Patriot Act is a perfect example. Let our country come under frequent attack that include small arms and I fear there will be a much harsher reaction than what we saw when they used jet airliners.
In the case of NOLA and Katrina I believe it was a case of the mayor and police chief believing it was better to beg forgiveness than ask permission so they ignored what was law and did what they wanted in accordance with their beliefs and philosophy regarding personal weapons.
I don't see it being different if we start to see what happened in Paris.



I'm sorry, but the Constitution did not change after 9/11. The Constitution itself outlines the mechanisms to change it...and public fear and new interpretations based on that fear is not one of them.
___________

Click to expand...

I stand by my post, if you can prove that rights were not suspended in NOLA than have at it. If you think that's the last time anti gun zealots will take advantage of a situation than dream on.
I'm well aware of what it takes to legally change the Constitution, doesn't mean that they won't try by other means.

I have not really found either here. From your first response, I find a very condescending, and even contemptuous tone.

Click to expand...

I think you've caught the essence there.

I think this article has some good history on martial law from someone with more experience than most.

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/Articles/97autumn/lujan.htm
Thomas R. Lujan, "Legal Aspects of Domestic Employment of the Army", Parameters, US Army War College Quarterly, Autumn 1997, Vol. XXVII, No. 3.

Colonel Thomas R. Lujan was the Staff Judge Advocate at the United States Special Operations Command, MacDill AFB, Tampa, Florida.

(I'm 67 and 18 years ago is recent history.)

TimSr said:

Agreed. This thread is titled "Martial Law". I think what this thread is lacking is an understanding of what "martial law" means, and who has the authority to declare it.

Click to expand...

A definition of "martial law" seems appropriate.

a system of complete control by a country's military over all activities, including civilian, in a theoretical or actual war zone, or during a period of emergency caused by a disaster such as an earthquake or flood, with the military commander having dictatorial powers.

Click to expand...

A reasonably clear description of martial law exists in the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 (emphasis added).

Whereas no legal State governments or adequate protection for life or property now exists in the rebel States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida. Texas and Arkansas; and whereas it is necessary that peace and good order should be enforced in said States until loyal and republican State governments can be legally established: Therefore,

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That said rebel States shall be divided into military districts and made subject to the military authority of the United States as hereinafter prescribed, and for that purpose Virginia shall constitute the first district; North Carolina and South Carolina the second district; Georgia, Alabama and Florida the third district; Mississippi and Arkansas the fourth district; and Louisiana and Texas the fifth district.

Sec. 2 And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the President to assign to the command of each of the said districts an officer of the army, not below the rank of brigadier-general, and to detail a sufficient military force to enable such officer to perform his duties and enforce his authority within the district to which he is assigned.

Sec. 3 And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of each officer assigned as aforesaid, to protect all persons in their rights of person and property, to suppress insurrection, disorder, and violence, and to punish, or cause to be punished, all disturbers of the public peace and criminals; and to this end he may allow local civil tribunals to take jurisdiction of and to try offenders, or, when in his judgment it may be necessary for the trial of offenders, he shall have power to organize military commissions or tribunals for that purpose, and all interference under color of State authority with the exercise of military authority under this act, shall be null and void.

Sec. 4 And be it further enacted, That all persons put under military arrest by virtue of this act shall be tried without unnecessary delay, and no cruel or unusual punishment shall be inflicted, and no sentence of any military commission or tribunal hereby authorized, affecting the life or liberty of any person, shall be executed until it is approved by the officer in command of the district, and the laws and regulations for the government of the army shall not be affected by this act, except in so far as they conflict with its provisions: Provided, That no sentence of death under the provisions of this act shall be carried into effect without the approval of the President.

Click to expand...

What is possible under martial law? One example is found in General Orders, No. 28 issued by the military governor of New Orleans during the War of Northern Aggression p).

HDQRS. DEPARTMENT OF THE GULF,
New Orleans, May 15, 1862.

As the officers and soldiers of the United States have been subject to repeated insults from the women (calling themselves ladies) of New Orleans in return for the most scrupulous non-interference and courtesy on our part, it is ordered that hereafter when any female shall by word, gesture, or movement insult or show contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States she shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her avocation.

By command of Major-General Butler:

GEO. C. STRONG,
Assistant Adjutant-General and Chief of Staff.

Click to expand...

A New Orleans woman, Eugenia Levy Phillips, was arrested and imprisoned under General Order, No. 28 for "mocking the funeral of a Union soldier."

X-Rap said:

I stand by my post, if you can prove that rights were not suspended in NOLA than have at it.

Click to expand...

By your own statement -"they ignored what was law"- rights were ignored rather than being suspended, which suggests a formal process of legal authorization.

By your own statement -"they ignored what was law"- rights were ignored rather than being suspended, which suggests a formal process of legal authorization.

Click to expand...

I'll put it a different way so maybe you can better understand my point.
Mayor Nagin and his chief of police suspended the citizens of NOLA's rights by ignoring the law and at the time no one questioned them with the result being confiscation of weapons by many if not all LEO agencys present during the flood aftermath.
You can parse words all you wish but the simple point is officials, be they mayors, chiefs, sheriffs, governors, presidents or their designees have the capacity at times to issue mandates that counter laws and rights and elect to suffer consequences later. I don't think that in the NOLA situation either was charged or penalized but Nagin did time for being a crook on other counts.
If a national crisis of large enough magnitude were declared and it involved small arms sourced from the public I believe the consensus of the leadership may not fall in our favor and much damage would be done before any courts would make any decision much like what happened in Katrina.

X-Rap said:

Mayor Nagin and his chief of police suspended the citizens of NOLA's rights by ignoring the law and at the time no one questioned them with the result being confiscation of weapons by many if not all LEO agencys present during the flood aftermath.
You can parse words all you wish but the simple point is officials, be they mayors, chiefs, sheriffs, governors, presidents or their designees have the capacity at times to issue mandates that counter laws and rights and elect to suffer consequences later. I don't think that in the NOLA situation either was charged or penalized but Nagin did time for being a crook on other counts.

Click to expand...

I do not disagree with your ultimate conclusion, but it is important to distinguish between lawful and unlawful activity.

Weapons were clearly confiscated in New Orleans as a result of government officials ignoring rights and acting outside the law. However, no government official had the authority to legally suspend those rights, which continued to exist even if they were not protected, or illegally violated, by the government.

I do not disagree with your ultimate conclusion, but it is important to distinguish between lawful and unlawful activity.

Weapons were clearly confiscated in New Orleans as a result of government officials ignoring rights and acting outside the law. However, no government official had the authority to legally suspend those rights, which continued to exist even if they were not protected, or illegally violated, by the government.

Click to expand...

Someone made the order and others followed when they should have rejected or ignored the command. I don't think those folks who had their doors kicked in and their only means of practical defense stripped from them cared that their right continued to exist.
Just want folks to be clear on what may happen should a serious crisis arise and also hope those who quickly cite court decisions that take years to decide to have a more realistic view of the law in real time under less than honorable leadership.
In short, consider who you put in power and how they do view fundamental rights because at some point their view may become more than theory.

Frank Ettin said:

Where exactly does it say that in the Bill of Rights?

What it does say in the Constitution is that disputes regarding the meaning and application of the Constitution are the province of the federal courts (Article III, Sections 1 and 2):

​

Click to expand...

Correct.

MistWolf was mistaken, the Declaration of Independence states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

And then of course, the 9th Amendment states:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

I do not believe the founders stipulated WHICH rights are the "certain unalienable rights." It's left to us as Americans to ascertain and agree which are unalienable.

The fact that they left this wide open is actually fascinating, as it also (in my opinion) provides for future Americans to realize and unify behind other rights that are unalienable, and as such must be respected/acknowledged/protected/defended.

I think because they spent the time to specify the Bill of Rights, they make those rights unalienable because of their ratification, but that's just my opinion.

I believe that people have the right to defend their life, ordained by God.

I don't believe that firearm ownership is a God-given right. It is a right afforded to us by our system of government, defended by us, which by our own declaration at times may need to be altered or abolished if it does not derive its powers from the consent of the governed.

The "Posse Comitatus Act" was amended October 17, 2006 when signed into law by GW Bush.

"The President may employ the armed forces... to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such... a condition... so hinders the execution of the laws... that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws."

Click to expand...

Katrina is a good example where civilian leadership directed law enforcement to confiscate firearms regardless of legal standing. Government does what they want when they want and relies on the fact that most folks don't have the resources to challenge actions or overreach in court.

Lets not forget the role Blackwater played during Katrina. They were contractors acting on behalf of civilian government so whether or not the military can be deployed in the US doesn't really matter when heavily armed contractors and "advisers" can be deployed instead.