The lack of civil preparedness as legal argument for RKBA

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am appreciative of your responses, I am just beginning to get my feet wet in regards to activism.
 
These restriction were birthed in 1939. SCOTUS made a rare decision limiting the 2nd Amendment based on the Militia clause. It seems they ignored the RTKABA when making this decision.:( It would require a certified Constitutional attorney to argue this.:)

http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/supreme-court-to-define-well-regulated-militia/
U.S. Supreme Court (1939): In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
US v. Miller was an unfortunate case against the NFA to bring before the supreme court. I wonder how that would have played out if it had been a full auto Thompson instead of a short barreled shotgun.

Though doesn't that ruling actually support a case for the AR15?

Miller also ignores the fact that 'security' is not just against foreign governments, though I doubt that in 1939 they could have envisioned a world where religious zealots and troubled teenagers wantonly murder unarmed people in government mandated disarmament zones.
 
Last edited:
All a state do is insist their citizens are safe, and they have just as 'ironclad' and argument in favor of infringement as they do now through "the interest of public safety." This one is a non-starter, even if it was the *actual* stated reason for the RKBA (the security of a free state). Which, of course/again, is not to say it is the only reason (which is the fundamental argument offered by both Hellerite and Millerite restrictionists)

US v. Miller was an unfortunate case against the NFA to bring before the supreme court. I wonder how that would have played out if it had been a full auto Thompson instead of a short barreled shotgun.
Miller was not "brought" before the court like a normal case. It was pushed, kicked, and dragged after death up to the high court, where federal judges and federal bureaucrats decided the fate of a core civil liberty for an entire nation...without an opposition. Blatant kangaroo court, on the heals of the Court Packing scandal; FDR had made it clear that his men would be enforcing this law going forward, and if the justices did not consent, he would find ones that would.

Perhaps there is a more egregious example of a miscarriage of justice by the SCOTUS (Dred Scott came close, but was at least resolved through the Civil War long before a century had passed). There was sleaziness & corruption dripping from every aspect of the case. About the only thing the feds weren't guilty of was murdering Miller before he could testify (probably). The duration and scope of the impact are essentially incalculable at this point, and we're unlikely to ever be rid of federal gun restrictions --or any of them, at the rate things are going.

Though doesn't that ruling actually support a case for the AR15?
No, not in the way you want (or think). Miller protects arms only in connection with militia service. Good thing, right? Since you/me/we are all in the militia per the Militia Act? Wrong. "Service" gets to be decided by whomever is in power, ergo the feds have as much authority to ban & restrict as they want; this the argument frequently trotted out whenever they want to ban handguns, since handguns aren't particularly applicable to military service by themselves.

When "assault weapons" are on the chopping block, they invariably trot out Heller, ignoring entirely the premise that such weapons clearly suitable for militia use enjoy some level of protection under Miller, or at most hand-waving away the notion that such arms would be kept/owned privately (as opposed to housed at a central armory). They claim that since these long-guns are not particularly suited to daily carry on one's person, they are unsuited for self defense purposes Heller defends at length. Ironically, this is claimed even in areas where the "assault weapon" would be obviously left at home because of a (near) prohibition on any kind of carry outside the residence.

An honest jurist would recognize that Heller acknowledges all forms of self defense, and that countless experts recognize nearly all handguns and long guns and shot guns are suitable or even ideal for various circumstances, and that the decision should therefore lie with the individual prepared to defend their life with their selection. An honest jurist would recognize that every description of the militia in early the history of the United States has always broadly referred to a distributed, privately maintained but possibly publicly funded, armed force that generally operates informally unless deployed or training --and that private ownership & maintenance of arms compatible with this ideal are a necessary core feature.

But we don't have many honest jurists, so you get precedent like what we have.

Dividing these two facets of gun laws (handguns/rifles) has been useful in making more powerful arguments where one of the two was being infringed, but each "win" makes the other topic more vulnerable to the side-step in areas where both are at risk. At some point some old blue-blood Ivy League crones in robes will decide whether to maintain the illusion of a private militia in this nation (they won't), and whether the defense of individuals who aren't themselves outweighs the cowardly desires of society which does include themselves (they will).

And that's where Article V comes in. Incidentally, every time an Article V starts to gain steam, congress suddenly starts listening to the states' desires for a change, and quickly ratifies amendments through the usual process to address their concerns. The feds certainly are a jealous lot.

TCB
 
Last edited:
It's more than likely that this has been gone over before, but due to recent laws going into effect perhaps the civil preparedness argument is more viable now. Using California as an example; if a state is going to pass laws to cripple the effectiveness (and industry) of certain types of guns it should have the plans and resources in place to protect the residents of the state during times of crisis. If it doesn't then the law can be overturned (in federal court) that prevents a resident of that state from possessing a firearm for that intended purpose. Thus ensuring that other states can't pass similar laws. The argument that day-to-day public safety is of more concern is not valid and is unjustly putting the burden of public safety on the individual, who, in this case is being prevented from doing just that. I would like to hear your thoughts and experiences in regards to my statement.

Gerald H

I think yours is a good question and interesting argument. The scenario surrounding your question somewhat reminds me of what happened after Hurricane Katrina hit. My dad and stepmom live in Biloxi and survived Katrina. As an aside, and contrary to popular belief, the hurricane didn't hit New Orleans. As most Gulf Coasters know, when a hurricane hits, the area to the east of the eye bears the punishing brunt, and that's exactly what happened when Katrina hit the Mississippi Gulf Coast. It wasn't until well after the eye of the hurricane passed that the levee protecting New Orleans breached, causing the massive flooding, destruction and mayhem in that city.

Meanwhile, as soon as I was able to gather enough jerry cans of gas, my cousin and I drove down from Dallas to Biloxi to look for my dad after after seeing news reports of death, looting and destruction Katrina left along the coast. Thankfully, we didn't personally witness any deaths or looting, but did see lots and lots of massive destruction. Also, as we got closer to Mississippi, we started seeing more and more caravans of highway patrols, sheriffs department vehicles and National Guard convoys from different states and parts of the country all headed down alongside us. I was actually afraid I might get stopped and told to turn back around, but luckily they didn't really notice me or the 42 gallons of spare fuel I had in the back of my truck that probably exposed me as a rolling flammable hazard.

I've been through 5 hurricanes in my lifetime after having lived in Puerto Rico, the Mississippi Gulf Coast and Florida. The number one most important item every hurricane veteran knows you need is water, and plenty of it. The second most is a toss up between food and gas. When a hurricane hits, the city water system gets so overwhelmed it stops working. That means, no water coming out of your faucets. The fresh, clean, potable water most of us take for granted, is no longer available. I'm not talking its unavailable for a few hours. It can take days or a week or two or even longer to get clean water back. You need water to drink, wash, clean, cook, flush the toilet, etc. You can't drink bullets or guns to survive. You need to fill every bathtub to the brim with water, every bucket and every container you can find with as much water as possible, and then go to the store and buy up as much water that may be left as the shelves quickly empty before the hurricane strikes. Any water that may come out of the faucet after a hurricane strikes is most likely dirty and contaminated, if it comes out at all. If your somewhat daring, you can jump in the gator and water moccasin infested pond to cool off and take a bath, which we actually did. Maybe a shotgun blast might help if you see a water moccasin along the shore, but I don't think it would be much good if you're already in the water trying to cool off and bathe.

Another thing that happens when a hurricane strikes is the electrical power goes down for days if not for a week or more. When that happens, no a/c to keep you cool in the hot, humid weather of the gulf coast. Stack up on batteries for flashlights so you can see and avoid debris and broken pieces of wood with nails sticking up. Also, with no electricity, gas station pumps quit working. So you can't get gas for your car. Since we live in a society where you need a car to get around in, you better have gassed up before the hurricane hits, and fill up your jerry cans for any generators you may have to keep the fridge on and avoid food spoilage. When we went down there, the gas stations as far away as Monroe, Louisiana (about 5 hours away from Biloxi) had just run out of gas. Once we crossed into Mississippi, there were no open gas stations left, and we still had 3 1/2 hours left of driving to get down there (not to mention we had to get back to Dallas afterwards). Bullets and guns won't fuel your flashlights or car - you need gas (or diesel for a diesel engine).

Next on the list of things that go away when a massive hurricane hits is communications. Hurricane winds will knock down both cell towers and land lines. So you can't call your dad to find out if he's OK, and he can't call you. You can't call his neighbors or the local police, either. I suppose you could try communicating via ham radio, if both of you have one. I don't know if that's even allowed as I'm not a ham radio operator and don't know the rules governing ham radios. All I know is that bullets and guns don't work as communication devices.

Perhaps the most surprising phenomena that has occurred at every hurricane I've experienced is the "coming together" and neighborly help that somehow materializes. Neighbors you never met or rarely spoke to are all of a sudden sharing canned meats, spare generators, water, and anything else you may need. When we were down there, most folks thought we were stranded when they saw the Texas plates on my truck and offered me all kinds of things which I politely declined after explaining I came down to help family. And even in Puerto Rico, one of the most crime-ridden territories of the U.S., neighbors did everything possible to help each other out and recover.

That same neighborly help is instrumental in keeping looters away when the neighborhood gets together during a relatively short crisis like that. This is where bullets and guns finally have their place - protection from possible looters. Luckily, neither I nor any of my neighbors ever experienced any looting, even in Puerto Rico, in the neighborhoods I lived in after a hurricane hit. Even so, it's always better to have and not need than need and not have. But given the choice, I'd still rather have lots of water at my disposable. With that said, I heard that in some parts of Louisiana (a supposedly conservative and gun-friendly state), gun owners had their guns confiscated by law enforcement after the order was issued to do so. So not only did the state not have the resources to provide and protect those poor folks, they had the gall to later confiscate their guns leaving them even more vulnerable. I've since learned they passed laws preventing that from happening again, but who knows if they'll find a way around those laws if another crisis hits.

One last note concerning my hurricane experiences. Believe it or not but certain food industries manage to reopen less than 24 hours after a massive hurricane hits. I know, because I used to work in the food industry as a youngster and was somehow expected to drive around fallen tree limbs and power lines to get to work! Some places like the Waffle House, McDonald's and eateries like that have back-up generators of some sort. So if you're tired of eating canned food and drinking warm sodas by candle light, you might try one of those eateries if you can drive to one before they run out of food supplies - at least until supply trucks are able to get through and re-supply them with more food stuffs.

Just figured I'd pass on my experience of having gone through several short-live crises where everything shuts down. Like I said, I found water, gas, food and batteries to be at the top of the list of things. I obviously believe in the need for protection and think ammo and firearms are also good to have, but will most likely not be needed, at least not like water, gas and food. Now, if things were to shut down and deteriorate for a very long time, like what happened in former Yugoslavia and Argentina in the past, then I think ammo and firearms would be much more necessary for protection and security. But I don't think the OP's original scenario above was referring to that.
 
even in Puerto Rico, one of the most crime-ridden territories of the U.S., neighbors did everything possible to help each other out and recover.

I'd still rather have lots of water at my disposable.

ammo and firearms are also good to have, but will most likely not be needed, at least not like water, gas and food.

Truly good advice. I had similar experiences during an earthquake, the local drug store put all the batteries, flashlights, first aid items and of all things, ice cream it had in stock on the sidewalk. My emergency supplies now include a large bottle of whiskey, which was one of the harder things to come by after the first night. After checking on friends and contacting family, my immediate efforts during that time were focused on making sure my apt building natural gas was turned off and and the buildings near me. LE kept us out of the worst hit areas and prevented civilians from helping. Aftershocks kept most people spending the first night outside on their lawns. The thought of civil unrest never entered my mind in the first 48 hours and it really wasn't a major concern after it did. Your post reminded me of the good I experienced during the worst crisis I have lived through, thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top