Discussion in 'Strategies, Tactics and Training' started by American_Fusilier, Nov 25, 2019.
It's not opinion.
Do some reading. You might learn something.
On the history of the militia since before we were a nation. On the militia act of 1791 and the subsequent laws up to the Dick Act. Then there is the 1886 Supreme Court Decision in Presser v Illinois.
Presser v. Illinois (1886)
In Presser v. Illinois (1886), The Supreme Court reiterated the stance found in United States v. Cruikshank, by applying it to state regulation, stating the following: “The provision in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, that ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’ is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government, and not of the states.” In this case, the Supreme Court also clarified notions involving a well-regulated militia by disposing of the argument that individuals have the right to assemble as a militia independent of state or federal authorization by issuing the following statement: “It shall not be lawful for any body of men whatever other than the regular organized volunteer militia of this state and the troops of the United States to associate themselves together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms in any city or town of this state without the license of the Governor thereof.”
You can read about that case here:
The reason the Heller case was so groundbreaking is that for the first time it acknowledged the right to keep and bear arms independent of membership in the militia.
I disagree, but I appreciate the polite response to a simple question (unlike the response from another poster). Every other amendment is specifically about protecting the rights of the people from government intrusion. Why would the founders add a solitary amendment protecting the "right" of the people to be involved in a government sanctioned and run organization? That would be pointless.
I have heard 2nd Amendment scholars explain that the term "militia" in the 2nd amendment refers to all able bodied citizens able to be called upon to defend the Constitution. An organized militia is already armed by the government, so I don't think the National Guard really benefits from the 2nd amendment. The 2nd Amendment, I have heard argued, is about allowing arms for the disorganized militia, ie, the people.
Anyway, I am not a lawyer. Lawyers tend to use use words to mean different things depending on which lie they are trying to tell.
The "2nd Amendment militia," at this point in time, is really a theoretical construct. It's basically everybody. It's not the National Guard, it's not the State Guard, and it's certainly not self-organized groups of individuals calling themselves "militias." Paradoxically, the minute you try to organize a "militia" made up of a segment of the population, you lose its constitutional status under the 2nd Amendment.
This is where the Heller case went wrong. Justice Scalia should have given due weight to the Militia Clause (what he called the "prefatory clause") instead of negating it. All individuals are part of the universal "2nd Amendment militia" and are entitled to own all the ordinary weapons used by the standing military. But Scalia and his colleagues were unwilling to go that far.
You can disagree all you want, but what it all boils down to is that the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, not what you think it means.
I apologize if I was rude. I should have phrased what I said more diplomatically.
There are some "Second Amendment advocates " out there promoting some very dangerous ideas based on old wives' tales and misreading of the Constitution - divorcing it from the larger context of American jurisprudence - in such a way as to fit with a predetermined narrative.
There is a fairly substantial body of scholarship on the Second Amendment which is very much worth pursuing. And enlightening.
I reacted as if your questions implied such ideas and for that, again, I apologize.
You're doing this now?
What happens when you approach someone and ask their business and they tell you it's none of yours?
I think that the militia clause in the Second Amendment is there to provide justification for RKBA. This was the prevailing thought until Heller. Heller established that there was RKBA and it was not dependent on membership in the militia.
Prior to Heller congress conceivably could have passed a law regulating the militia, declaring it’s modern job was to clean up after a battle or a natural disaster and requiring every household to own shovels and brooms. This law could have had the effect of saying that the Second Amendment protected the right to own shovels and brooms, nothing more.
I don’t think that the founders intended to protect the concept of private armies. While we do have a history of wealthy people forming their own units during the Indian wars and even up to the Spanish American War, those units were always sanctioned by the government as part of the militia, often against the advice of the leaders of the regular armed forces.
Presser specifically stated that the Second Amendment didn’t establish a right to form a private army that was separate from the government. Those modern militia groups that do exist, exist only because the government has essentially ignored them. Over half of the states have laws that make it a crime to organize and train a private armed force.
The government could shut down every private militia in the country if the government wanted to. If the members tried to use the Second Amendment as a defense they would almost certainly lose because Presser established that the Second Amendment didn’t protect a right to organize an armed force not authorized by the government.
Yes. Many neighbors are retired and at home all day/night. And we rarely get a "strange" car down our private road with several houses.
In the past, it's been mostly under the reason of "lost" as Google map shows the road going through but it does not and we help the drivers get to where they are intending to go.
There has been a few cases where drivers are obviously looking around/checking out the neighborhood slowly (This was when we had several burglaries in the area and neighbors had items stolen from their yards and a neighbor who did yard/landscaping work figured some people followed his work truck/trailer home - Since he moved, there has not been anymore burglaries/items stolen) and engaging them in friendly hello prompted them to quickly rush under the guise of "they are looking for someone or they were told to meet someone there" and drive out the road. Sometimes, just being aware they were being watched got them packing even before I got to approach them.
Another thing that helps is we have 3 dogs who are very familiar with neighbors' cars and even the noise their tires make on the gravel road. They won't bark when neighbors' cars approach and drive by but when a strange car or UPS/FedEx delivery/trash trucks approach/drive by, they are barking up the storm against the wire fence. Of course, any car lost or checking out the neighborhood are met with these barking dogs. I have talked to neighbors about our dogs barking and they said they don't mind the dogs barking at all because they noticed they only bark at cars not familiar to them. So when they hear our dogs barking, they are alerted that a strange car is driving down the private road and keep an eye on the strange car.
Maybe I should have elaborated more on what I was asking. I asked,
. I did not ask, "what kind of militia do you think power hungry politicians want the 2A to be talking about"? Why would the founders bother to write something that "protected" the "right" of the people to be part of a government controlled organization? That would have been totally pointless.
I explained the basis, in a nutshell, in the rest of the post that you quoted. See above.
It is a double edged sword. "Progressive" anti gunners try to state the 2A is about the militia. That if you (meaning anyone) want to own a firearm, join the military/guard/reserves. "Regular" people don't "need" firearms. I understand the 2A was written when membership into a local or state militia was common place. Having a 2A to allow militia members to retain arms, either from the militia or privately owned, allowed for their individual defense as citizens or collective defense as an organized militia.
If we’re getting Founding Fathers technical, they’d be disgusted so many think it’s an individual right without an civic obligation. They would also be disgusted with all the dudes toting ARs, wearing 3% patches, with BMIs of 47 claiming “moron labe” who aren’t fit to stand up out their rascal scooter, much less defend their state/nation.
Yes, you have a right to military arms. You also have a duty to serve if called. Well, originally. Now it’s, well, Heller.
The 2A wasn’t about personal defense, that was a given, commonly understood, inherent in society. The 2A was about national security in lieu of a large standing army and the check against the eventuality of the standing military and scariness of large political factions...i.e. the two sides of 47% in this country who would gladly wipe the other out.
The Federalist Papers are a great place to start. Madison wasn’t an idiot.
The National Guard and Reserves are in no way the militia and it is doubtful that any legal scholar writing on the Second Amendment - pro or anti - makes that argument. It is pretty well known that they are part of the standing army.
You’re half right. The reserves are part of the standing army. The National Guard is the Organized Militia. The Dick Act passed and signed into law in 1903 divided the militia as organized in the Militia Act of 1792 into the Organized Militia and the Unorganized Militia. By law the National Guard is the Organized Militia. The Unorganized Militia consists of all able bodied men between the ages of 17 and 45. Some states have State Guard Units but they have no federal role and are forbidden to wear US military insignia. These State guard units are funded by their state and receive no federal funds or training.
By federal law the militia is divided into the organized and unorganized militia, the National Guard comprises the organized militia.
However the Dick Act did not supercede Presser and it does not give members of the unorganized militia the right to form their own units which was the idea that took us down this rabbit hole.
Interestingly enough it was an internet rumor that the Dick Act invalidated all gun laws in the US. I’m not sure how anyone read that into the law but it was a thing for awhile.
How about legitimate visitors? Are only the "known" cars okay with you?
Sounds like a great way to get shot. I'm not sure I have heard of anything as reckless.
Carrying out traffic stops is one of the most dangerous parts of a police officer's job.
This discussion has reminded me of two historical events: the great Northfield Raid and the Demise of the Younger gang at Coffeeville, KS. I suspect most if not all members are knowledgeable regarding these events, so I won't dwell on the scenarios other than to state if it were not for the citizens to take matters into their own hands and fight collectively, and the availability of firearms and to effectively employ them, the outcomes would have been decidedly different. It would appear at first blush the town-folks acted in much the same manner some of us are criticizing the concepts of self defense. In both fights, law enforcement was out gunned and as it is today, professional law enforcement was some time away..... arguably survival was/is based on preparation and skill capabilities.
There is a huge difference between a bunch of citizens grabbing their guns and engaging a gang of criminals who are shooting up the town and forming a vigilance committee or private army to deal with the possibility of something happening. It's not the 1880s anymore. A private citizen who took up arms in those incidents you describe was unlikely to be charged criminally or sued in civil court for his actions that day. Those are real possibilities in 2019.
That’s exactly my point, Jeff. As crime rates increase and the need to defend the community because the government is not able to protect its citizens, then it becomes incumbent upon the collective to stop aggression. As our population in the U.S. has doubled in the last fifty years so has deviancy and associated criminal conduct. You can take the stance of doing nothing if crime doesn’t impact you personally, or on the other hand implement strategies beneficial to you and the community.
I hear what your saying. Don’t do anything that might get you sued, just let the villains run wild and cringe in your hope of not being victimized.
So in your world society has already collapsed and the only solution is to form vigilance committees and militias? I don't think we are at that point yet. There are plenty of examples of what a society like that looks like; Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, parts of major metropolitan areas here in the US. I personally don't want to live in a world where you have to pass through multiple checkpoints manned by armed men with unknown motives to go about my daily business. How are vigilance committees and militias beneficial to the community?
That’s quite a stretch, Jeff. Societal collapse and war in the Mideast, really. Your outrageous comparison mitigates credibility of your argument. Why do citizens now live in gated communities, hire security guards(who often are off duty LEO’s) and employ armed guards to protect them and their personal property? Why do we have untold numbers of cameras watching our every move in the public domain? Can you think out of the box and get past the militia negativity and imagine helpful ideas at the community level that are beneficial to all citizens?
You and other moderators espouse personal/individual training, practice and situational awareness.... readiness for the very limited possibility of having to employ defensive strategies in the face of aggression. How is it you can argue against the same preparation when it involves the community at large?
As a caveat, I made two tours to the Mideast as a contractor with the DoD. I can tell you societal dysfunction exists due in large part to corrupt governments as well as the terrorists preying on the unarmed, untrained, disenfranchised citizens.
It's "don't do anything unwise that may well get you killed, or charged, indicted, tried, convicted, and imprisoned.
No one want to "let the villains run wild", but getting people together to head out hunting for "bad guys" is not the answer.
We know that neighborhood watch volunteers can help--if they watch and report, and stay out of harm's way.
What else do you have in mind?
Did you read through the thread? The OP (who deleted his opening post when the discussion didn't go the way he hoped) asked about training with his neighbors in case of a riot.
Are you saying that a group arming themselves and training to repel boarders is the same as moving to a gated community protected by licensed security guards. There is a huge difference between the two situations. Security officers are licensed by the state and empowered to legally detain people and make an arrest. The private group doesn't have those powers. They would be forced to operate under the laws pertaining to citizens arrest. Some states don't make a provision for that and those that do limit a citizens power to make an arrest to a felony that they observe as it happens. They have no legal authority to detain anyone or set up a road block or a checkpoint. The gated community is private property. Your group of citizens would be blocking public roads.
Because those preparations come perilously close to being illegal. A group of friends shooting together is not illegal. Give that same group of friends a name and train to conduct law enforcement or paramilitary operations and you've crossed the line. Establish a security checkpoint on public roads going into your neighborhood and unless there are exigent circumstance such as your neighborhood being devastated by storm or other disaster and you're likely to be arrested.
That's exactly how certain areas in our big cities became dysfunctional. But our society has not reached the state where vigilance committees or militias are necessary to maintain order.
Then you know exactly what I mean when I say that it's not a good environment when there are different rules that are enforced by different people with different motivations in every neighborhood. And that's exactly where your idea of armed community action will take us.
As most of us realize, what were our traditional social norms, mores and values have pretty much completely disintegrated within the past fifty years.
Where formerly community members would "check" those members of the community who violated our courtesies (i.e., disruptive public behavior, foul language around women and children, public lewdness and drunkenness in family settings, fights using weapons instead of the old schoolyard fistfights, blaring loud music in neighborhoods in the wee hours of the morning, automobiles speeding through neighborhood streets at high rates of speed) -- no one says a word now even in the face of the most egregious rudeness, lewdness and often outright criminal behavior.
This didn't happen all at once. Remember NYC's "broken windows" concept? The broken windows theory, a criminological theory that the visible signs of crime, anti-social behavior, and civil disorder create an urban environment that encourages further crime and disorder, including serious crimes. Attend to the little violations, and maybe that just helps us prevent more serious crimes?
We've lost our culture.
And to expect law enforcement to be the only regulators of what should be our social norms is just a ridiculous concept.
Maybe it is time for us to evolve into more tribal communities, take care of each other and our own areas. We can do this without breaking laws or blocking public thoroughfares.
What we have now clearly is not working.
That kind of action has always been a good way to get into a confrontation that could turn out very badly, without any lawful justification at all.
The legislatures and the courts have done that--not law enforcement.
Separate names with a comma.