I've just read the entire constitution, Quick question about #5

[possom813]

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.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I was reading a post the other day that mentions that a court case could come down to the placement of commas in the 2nd Amendment.

For some reason, I recollect an argument about the wording "well regulated militia", and what defines that.

The 5th Amendment seems to compare the Militia to the land and naval forces. Could that be an accurate definition that may cause problems for gunowners in the future?

I just read through the Constitution, and also noticed several spelling errors. Such as: defence, Pensylvania, and a few punctuation errors. I don't know if the errors would hold up in a Court of Law, but it was an interesting read.

-John

 

[possom813]

I also was looking around and found a link to Nick Levinson's research on the Constitution that he did in 2002-03. I've just started reading it.

Link to the site

 

[GRIZ22]

I just read through the Constitution, and also noticed several spelling errors. Such as: defence, Pensylvania

Not necessarily spelling errors. Defence, armour, etc are all British spellings still in use. Don't knoe about "Pensylvania" but if you read other old documents different spellings were used for words that are common now.

 

[ilbob]

back then people were not as obsessed with spelling, punctuation, and capitalization. that may seem a little odd to us, especially since so many of the founders were superb writers.

i feel the need to read the constitution every now and then myself.

 

[VARifleman]

It clearly seperates them as different entities, and I think it would be a strech to try to work it so that it could be used against us. Of course, there's been more streching of the constitution than strech armstrong can take.

 

[shield20]

What the Militia was at that time was well understood - they had been in existence for 150 years in the colonies. In the most basic form, most able-bodied males, who armed themselves, and were trained to some degree in military evolutions, under some governmental supervision/approval - the colony then the Commonwealth/State.

There were MAJOR differences to distinguish them in the Constitution too - federal Armies COULD be raised and supported, a federal Navy was to be provided and maintained (by Congresss), yet the citizen Militia of the several States, that pre-existed the Constitution, was required; and it was given specific roles to fill (as you read in Article 1 Sec 8 C15,C16).

What will be used against us is the current situation in which the federal NG has taken the place of the constitutional Militias; so it is said (incorrectly) that "we the people" no longer have a...mandated reason to be armed, since we have no role to play as a Militia.

 

[legaleagle_45]

The 5th Amendment seems to compare the Militia to the land and naval forces.

Good catch. This provision of the 5th was suggested in the very same proposals which gave rise to the 2nd in the debates in the state ratifying conventions where the concerns about the militia were addressed. Thus from New York, we have this proposed amendment:

That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; that the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law, except in time of War Rebellion or Insurrection.

This provision in the 5th was deemed a protection for members of the militia from application of military law except solely when they are called into federal service. Thus, the members of the regular armed services are subject to the UCMJ at all times, but the members of the well regulated militia are not.

The fear was that the feds would impose severe regulations upon members of the militia in order to have the militia fade away.... because no one would want to be a member of the militia under those circumstances.

 

[shield20]

eagle,

Once again - excellent info!

Cheers!

 

[armedandsafe]

I grew up in a newspaper, so I have a little background on the punctuation thing.

Printers, in those days, would insert punctuation to make the document read as if it were spoken. I have read a printer's diary where he noted that he would punctuate documents meant for those in the South differently from the way he would punctuate those meant for the NorthEasterners.

I remember a number of discussions with my Father (newspaper owner and editor) and my Uncle (LA Times editor.) I think I won, once. A comma after the word "and" is sometimes appropriate.

If you do deep research on the 2nd, you will find the third comma missing in many of the original writings and present in the "final" version. Read it aloud to an audience, with and without that comma, and you get the same meaning.

Pops

 

[mek42]

Would a fair summary (of the 5th with respect to members of the militia) be that only in times of war (or other narrowly defines states of emergency such as rebellion) is a member of the militia to be held against the UCMJ instead of appropriate civilian laws?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

What will be used against us is the current situation in which the federal NG has taken the place of the constitutional Militias; so it is said (incorrectly) that "we the people" no longer have a...mandated reason to be armed, since we have no role to play as a Militia.

That's not entirely correct. The Federal Militia Act is still on the books, and it specifically refers to the National Guard as the "organized" militia. But it also provides for the "unorganized" militia, which is every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45, plus female members of the National Guard and the Naval Auxiliary (IIRC).

Technically, being over the age of 45 I am no longer covered by the Milita Act, but a great many people who are not members of the National Guard are nonetheless members of the militia -- under Federal law.

 

[shield20]

I understand that, but what role does the unorganized Militia fill? And where is it mandated we are to be called out?

We have been obsoleted by law.

The insurrection Act (John Warner National Defense Authorization Act) as of 2006

(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
(A) 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 in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--
(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, 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, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

This is a far cry from the Militia Act of 1792

it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of the state or states

 

[azredhawk44]

shield20:

If I read that correctly, then Hillary can order the California national guard to go to Wyoming, Montana, New Hampshire or some other state and squash them for refusing to issue North American Union approved driver's licenses?

Or the Illinois national guard can be used to assault minutemen who have been labeled "vigilantes" by the president and a detriment to the cause of Law and Order?

That piece of legislation is creepier than the Patriot Act.

 

[shield20]

Yep - this was a huge grant of power to the executive.

The founders feared that the bane of liberty, a Standing Army, would be laid on the ruins of the Militia. And now we see how it has totally replaced the people as the defenders of freedom. I don't know what the time-table is for tyranny, but seems we may be right on schedule. Totally disarming the people would be just another huge step - and those idiots at the Brady Bunch and VPC just don't get it.

Rep Gerry: What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now it must be evident, that under this provision, together with their other powers, congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as make a standing army necessary. Whenever government 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.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

All the above doesn't negate the "unorganized" militia. We're still here, subject to activation by an act of Congress for the employ of the United States to enforce the laws of the Union, repel invasions, and suppress insurrections. Just because some of the militia has been activated doesn't mean the rest of us are off the hook or unnecessary. We are also here for the defense and aid of the state. Don't forget our main purpose which is to keep our own government from enslaving us.

We are here until there is a constitutional amendment abolishing us. At that point, the chase is on!

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. If that doesn't convince you to take a stand and protect your inalienable rights and freedoms, nothing will. If that doesn't convince you to maintain your personal sovereignty, you are already someone else's subject. If you don't secure your rights and freedoms to maintain your personal sovereignty now, it'll be too late to come to me for help when they come for you. I will already be dead because I had to stand alone. B.E.Wood

 

[mp510]

I just read through the Constitution, and also noticed several spelling errors. Such as: defence, Pensylvania, and a few punctuation errors. I don't know if the errors would hold up in a Court of Law, but it was an interesting read.

I did a term paper on American Indian Treaty Rights (specifically regarding hunting and fishing clauses), and in many of the treaties (especially the Colonial era treaties) there were quite a few misspellings and punctuation errors (tribal names, geographical names, etc...). When modern courts reviewed the treaties (usually late 20th century and later), they usually looked at the item intact, indicated the error with [sic] (to indicate and leave the original error as-is) and then examined it replacing the error with whatever was intended to be there.

 

[Robert Hairless]

The fear was that the feds would impose severe regulations upon members of the militia in order to have the militia fade away.... because no one would want to be a member of the militia under those circumstances.

Do you see any similarity in motive there behind the severe regulations of firearms and firearms owners imposed by the federal government, the District of Columbia, and state and local governments?

 

[gaston_45]

Originally Posted by #5
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The 5th doesn't apply to the militia unless called up.