Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "The 2nd Amendment Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Means | Think Again" video.
-
Actually it wasn't. That i why the Militia Law EVOLVED to the point that the weaponry was provided by the gov't. That eliminated a lot of excuses and other problems.
What you fail to grasp is that you are not living in the past. That is, you are a law-illiterate who doesn't know what he's talking about. But it isn't that difficult to LEARN; one can, for example, READ the Constitution you've never read, with the knowledge that the entire Constitution is in effect at the same time. These are the first two of the four Militia Clauses in the Constitution:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions."
In short, the well-regulated -- UNDER LAW -- Militia is LAW ENFORCEMENT -- the OPPOSITE of "taking up arms" against the gov't, which is INSURRECTION, and which the Founders classified as TREASON.
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia . . . reserving to the States [GOV'T] respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS.
That "prescription" is in the form of STATUTES -- MILITIA ACTS.
That provision also establishes, under the Supremacy Clause, the FEDERAL gov't as the SUPREME authority over the States' well-regulated Militia -- which is ALSO under the STATE constitution and Militia Acts.
This succinctly described the purpose of the well-regulated Militia:
___
From Supreme Court decision _Presser v. Illinois_, 116 U.S. 252 (1886):
"(115) . . . . It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions . . . have . . . the power to control and regulate the organization, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations . . . . (116) The exercise of this power by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine."
6
-
". . . . And also, so that you can understand the wording of the 2nd Amendment as written, pay attention here."
Let's play your history- and law-illiterate game -- then SHRED it:
1. When the several states ratified the Constitution, they included with that written statement to Congress a PETITION to be accepted as a member of the Union.
2. Several states also included proposed amendments.
3. James Madison, a Congressman in the House of Representatives, codified the proposed amendments into a "Bill of Rights" resolution, which he then submitted to the House for debate. This is where the history- and law-illiterate claim that Madison wrote the Second Amendment. This is their "history":
James Madison was the "Father of the Constitution, AND he wrote the "Bill of Rights"/Second Amendment. If those facts are true then --
The first three words of the Constitution are, "We the people," not, "We the individual". Thus the word "people" -- the "We" makes it PLURAL -- has the same meaning from those first three words to the end of the "Bill of Rights" -- the first Ten Amendments.
IN FACT the House debated the resolution as COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE -- i.e., the entire House of Representatives Debated and wrote the "Bill of Rights".
AND the Senate ALSO debated and contributed to it. Madison was not a Senator.
4. The "Madison [Second] Amendment" was actually the first DRAFT of that which eventually became the Second Amendment. That an all but the last draft included ONE "individual right" -- which is obvious from its language, and which means the drafts of the amendment included BOTH the words "PEOPLE" -- which is PLURAL -- and "PERSON" -- which is obviously INDIVIDUAL. This is the ONLY "individual right" that was debated:
": but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms, shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY -- one could be DRAFTED into militia DUTY] to render military service [in well-regulated militia]".
That was OBVIOUSLY VOTED DOWN before the "Bill of Rights" was ratified.
One last fact:
Occasionally one or another gun-nut will boldly assert: "The Founders put the Second Amendment after the First Amendment to back up the First Amendment.
1. As submitted to the states for consideration and ratification, the proposed "Bill of Rights" consisted of TWELVE proposed Amendments.
The first two were REJECTIED, making the third the First, and the fourth the Second.
2. The First Amendment includes --
"Congress shall make no law . . . abridged . . . the right of the people to PEACEABLY assemble".
Thus the First amendment is consistent with "Art. I., S. 8., C. 15:
"The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS".
To "take up arms" against the gov't is INSURRECTION -- which is PROHIBITED. The alternative established by the Founders, and the Constitution and laws, is VOTING.
5
-
@american236 I don't skip it:
___
This is the first draft of that which became the Second Amendment, which the gun industry/NRA calls the "Madison" Amendment -- but which it never quotes. [Here I clarify it for the logic-impaired]:
"The right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear arms [this phrase is the well-regulated Militia, and was drawn from four state constitution Militia Clauses] shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in well-regulated Militia] in person."
Source: Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Paperback, 1991), Edited by Helen E Veit, et al., at 12. (This volume is readily available from Amazon.)
Note the word "compelled": Militia service was a DUTY -- not a "right". And note the words "people" and "person": if a person -- individual -- claimed "religious" exemption from that DUTY, his case was scrutinized individually.
The only "individual" "right" Congress debated was that last clause -- "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service" -- and it was obviously voted down before the proposed Amendment was ratified. Thus the Second Amendment obviously does not protect "individual" ANYTHING.
Only by ignoring the legislative history -- Congress's Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- could Scalia falsely hold that the Amendment protects an "individual" "right".
5
-
@Remo1147 In FACT, locksmith db's law-illiteracy notwithstanding, the Bill of Rights was DEBATED AND WRITTEN by CONGRESS -- both House and Senate. This is how standard adjudication works:
If there is a conflicting interpretation of a law, such as a Constitutional provision, and the resolution of the conflict is not in the text of the law at issue, then one refers to the LEGISLATIVE HISTORY - the "paper trail" that resulted in the law. The LEGISLATIVE HISTORY is LEGAL AUTHORITY. That is the obvious approach even to the dumbest. And it has been the adjudicatory standard since forever.
As concerns the INTENT of the Second Amendment, one READS THE CONRESS'S DEBATES -- they are readily available -- of the WRITING of the Amendment. From those one learns that the PURPOSE of the Amendment was to establish a NATIONAL DEFENSE relying on the well-regulated Militia.
A "militia" is not an individual. And the well-regulated Militia has ALWAYS been BOTH GOVERNED AND REGULATED under BOTH Federal and state constitutions and laws. And subsequent to ratification of the Bill of Rights, and as concerns the Second Amendment, Congress enacted two statutes -- "Militia Acts":
May 2, 1792: "An act to provide for calling forth the Militia [of the Second Amendment] to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions."
May 8, 1792: "An act more effectually to provide for the NATIONAL DEFENCE by establishing an UNIFORM MILITIA throughout the United States."
I have an education in law and have been focused on researching the issues for more than 30 years. And what the law-illiterate OMITS -- probably because ignorant of the fact, is that there were criticisms across the political spectrum from Constitutional scholars of Scalia's Heller decision for a simple and basic reason: he argued at length that the LEGISLATIVE HISTORY was IRRELEVANT -- which is NOT the adjudicatory standard.
It is ONLY by REJECTING the legislative history, in which one finds the ACTUAL INTENT of the Second Amendment, as established by the Congress that DEBATED AND WROTE IT, he was able FALSELY to find an "individual" "right" where none exists. IT IS CLEAR in those Debates that only ONE "individual" "right" was debated --
": but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated militia] shall be compelled [as in DRAFT -- militia service was a DUTY, not a "right"] to render military service [in well-regulated militia] in person."
That -- the right NOT to serve in the militia -- was obviously VOTED DOWN before the PROPOSED Amendment was submitted, along with the other ELEVEN proposed amendments, to the states for consideration and ratification.
To refute another false fantasy made up about the Second Amendment -- that the Second Amendment was placed directly after the First in order to enforce the First:
As submitted to the states, the PROPOSED Bill of Rights consisted of TWELVE PROPOSED Amendments. The FIRST TWO were REJECTED -- making the 4th the 2nd, and making the 3rd the 1st.
4
-
@rhynosouris710 "J Nagarya The issue is settled in DC v Heller: "The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.""
I'm well aware of Scalia's "holding" -- in fact there are TWO in that decision -- AND of the fact that in his "Heller" decision" he argued strenuously that the LEGISLATIVE HISTORY -- the DEBATES of the CONGRESS that WROTE that which became the Second amendment -- are "irrelevant" to the issue.
That's why we KNOW that Scalia was an ACTIVIST inserting his own views/the views of the gun industry/right-wing "Christian" rejectors of the Constitutional separation of "religion" and gov't OVER the law:
The STANDARD of adjudication -- NOT activist -- when there is a conflicting interpretation of a law, and the resolution isn't found "within the four corners" of the text of the law, a court resorts to the LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, which is LEGAL AUTHORITY, in order to determine the INTENT of the law.
The LEGISLATIVE HISTORY -- the DEBATES of the Congress that WROTE the Second Amendment -- PROVES that the INTENT of the Amendment was to establish a NATIONAL DEFENSE relying on the WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. The SUBJECT of the amendment is at the beginning of the Amendment: well-regulated Militia.
The phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" was taken from the FOUR STATE constitution Militia Clauses that were the SOURCE of the Amendment, which Clauses distinguished between the well-regulated militia -- "the right of the people," etc. -- and standing armies.
FURTHER: Constitutional provisions are IMPLEMENTED by means of STATUTES, in this context termed "Militia Acts". Completion of ratification of the Bill of Rights was on December 15, 1791; in May, 1792 there were two "Militia Acts" enacted. The second of the two is captions:
"An act more effectually to provide for the NATIONAL DEFENCE by establishing an uniform MILITIA throughout the United States."
As for "Heller": Scalia made TWO holdings:
1. That the Second Amendment protects an "individual right" -- which is REFUTED by the DEBATES of the WRITERS of the Amendment.
2. The gun control is Constitutional -- for which the evidence, AS LAW from the FOUNDIGS of the several colonies, and as continued through and beyond the 1770s, is OVERWHELMING.
And there is this:
___
No law protects private fake "militia":
See _District of Columbia v. Heller_, 554 U.S. 570, 621 (2008), citing _Pressor v. Illinois_, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), both of which are available via "Google" search:
The Second Amendment "does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations".
In fact, all 50 states classify such fake "militia" as paramilitary organizations and PROHIBIT them.
Pick your state:
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/our-work/addressing-the-rise-of-unlawful-private-paramilitaries/state-fact-sheets/
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
@Kaltwasser45 "Please provide writings from our founders that wanted to limit private ownership."
From the Vermont constitution of July 2, 1777:
"CHAPTER I.
"A Declaration of Rights," etc. -- this is the Militia Clause:
"XV. That the people have a right to [no "keep and"] bear arms for the defense of themselves AND ["AND" does not mean "OR"] the State [gov't]; and, as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the liberty should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
"CHAPTER II. -- private ownership of guns. Note that CHAPTER I. and CHAPTER II. are SEPARATE CHAPTERS:
"Section XXXIX. That the inhabitants of this State, shall have liberty to hunt and fowl, in seasonable times [this REGULATED by STATUTE/S], on the lands they hold, and on other lands (not enclosed;) . . . under proper regulations, to be hereafter made and provided by the General Assembly."
___
Thus, as shown, the private, individual right to possess guns is SEPARATE from serving Militia DUTY. Further, the constitution expressly stipulates that that right is subject to "regulations . . . made and provide by the General Assembly," which is the LEGISLATIVE branch.
Also of note is that the above Militia Clause, with those of three other state constitutions, were the sources for that which become the Second Amendment.
And as in EVERY state the commander-in-chief of the militia is the state's governor, it is OBVIOUS that the well-regulated Militia -- there is no other -- is under the regulation and governance of the legislature, and that the state militia is an arm OF gov't, and thus NOT intended to be a THREAT TO gov't, gov't being by definition RULE OF LAW.
As reminder, from the US Constitution:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions."
See "Shays's" and "Whiskey" insurrections: the Founders charged them with, tried them for, and convicted them of, TREASON, and sentenced them to DEATH. There is no "right" to "take up arms" against the gov't/RULE OF LAW.
3
-
@olympicfireball What about the 9th and 10th Amendments -- slapping the faces of those who invoke those in effort to dodge the fact that the subject of the Second Amendment is well-regulated Militia, and its intent to establish a National Defense relying on the Militia as not only the Debates make clear but also the second "Militia Act" of May 8, 1792.
Being "secure" in one's papers, subject only to warrant, is certainly about privacy. We also recognize the right of privacy in the various privileges applying to such as lawyer-client and doctor-patient relationships.
All of the Bill of Rights bars infringement by gov't, including the Second Amendment guarantee that the state's can keep their well-regulated Militia, while at the same time the Constitution expressly stipulates that the Militia is subject to "organizing, ARMING, and disciplining" and training by Congress's regulation, AND the concomitant regulation and governing of same under the state's constitution and laws.
You want to deny, with the 6 "Federalist Society" religioEXTREMISTS that the right of privacy doesn't exist simply because the words "right of privacy" don't exist in the Constitution.
Other words that don't appear in the Constitution:
"Originalism".
"Textualism".
"Individual right to own guns.
So, being a hypocrite, you are AGAINST the "invisible" right of privacy, but NOT against the "invisible" individual right to own guns". That is obviously INCOHERENT.
So was Scalia: in Heller he strenuously argued that the legislative history -- the DEBATES of the writing of the Second Amendment -- are irrelevant. But in his dissent in a subsequent gun case he strenuously argued that the very same legislative history is CRUCIAL.
The problem is that you're a law-illiterate, AND intellectually dishonest, so there is no way you can get around the fact that the subject of the Second Amendment is the well-regulated Militia, and that it does not protect an individual right. When will you learn basic logic, and the ethical requirement of being intellectually honest?
3
-
2
-
@twotokes1734 This is ACTUAL law, and it refutes the anti-American crap you and "locksmith db" guzzle:
___
No law protects private "militia"
This chronology illustrates both the evolution and elaboration, and specificity, of law, and at the same time its continued fundamental consistency, over centuries:
Militia Act from October 1658 (rendered in contemporary English):
"Military, [S.] 11. . . . It is Further Ordered, that henceforth all warrants for impressing [e.g., DRAFTING] & raising of soldiers for any expedition, shall be directed to the Committee of militia of the several Towns who may execute the same by the Constable & the said Committee are hereby impowered & required to suppress all raising of soldiers, but such as shall be by the authority of this government."
The Colonial Laws of Massachusetts. Reprinted from the Edition of 1660, with the Supplements to 1672. Containing Also, the Body of Liberties of 1641. (Boston: Rockwell & Churchill, City Printers, Published by Order of the City Council of Boston, 1889), William H. Whitmore, Record Commissioner, at 179.
"Committee of Militia" is part of the town gov't. Between Committee and Colony gov't was a military command structure, in law, which included that the governor was commander-in-chief of the Militia.
From the Constitution, ratification completed on June 21, 1788:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions."
"Art. I., s. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia . . . reserving to the States the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
From Supreme Court decision _Presser v. Illinois_, 116 U.S. 252 (1886):
"(115) . . . . It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions . . . have . . . the power to control and regulate the organization, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations . . . . (116) The exercise of this power by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine."
From _District of Columbia v. Heller_, 554 U.S. 570, 621 (2008) citing _Presser_:
The Second Amendment "does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations".
In fact, all 50 states classify such fake "militia" as "paramilitaries" and PROHIBIT them.
Pick your state:
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/our-work/addressing-the-rise-of-unlawful-private-paramilitaries/state-fact-sheets/
2
-
2
-
@emmittmatthews8636 U.S. Constitution, "Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for . . . ARMING . . . the Militia".:
___
Chap. LXV.--An Act providing Arms for the Militia throughout the United States.
Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be provided, at the charge and expense of the government of the United States, thirty thousand stand of arms, which shall be deposited by order of the President of the United States, at suitable places, for the purpose of being sold to the governments of the respective States, or the militia thereof, under such regulations, and at such prices as the President of the United States shall prescribe.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby authorized to cause all or any part of the arms herein directed to be provided and deposited for sale, which shall, at any time, remain unsold, to be delivered to the militia, when called into the service of the United States, proper receipts and security being given for the return of the same.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the monies arising from such sales shall be paid into the treasury of the United States, and the amount received shall be annually reported to Congress.
Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That for the purpose of carrying this act into effect, the President of the United States shall be, and he is hereby authorized to draw from the treasury of the United States, a [577] sum not exceeding four hundred thousand dollars, to be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.
Approved, July 6, 1798.
___
The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, from the Organization of the Government in 1789, to March 3, 1845. Arranged in Chronological Order. With References to the Matter of Each Act and to the Subsequent Acts on the Same Subject, and Copious Notes of the Decisions of the Courts of the United States Construing Those Acts, and Upon the Subjects of the Laws. With an Index to the Contents of Each Volume, and a Full General Index to the Whole Work, in the Concluding Volume. Together with the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of the United States; and Also, Tables, in the Last Volume, Containing Lists of the Acts Relating to the Judiciary, Imposts and Tonnage, the Public Lands, Etc., Vol I. (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1850), By Authority of Congress, Edited by Richard Peters, at 576.
___
Chap. XXIX.
An act to enable the Governor to provide a laboratory and proper magazines for the reception of arms, ammunition, and other public stores.
1. Whereas it is expedient that proper magazines for the reception of arms, ammunition, and other public stores, and a laboratory be speedily provided, Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that the Governor with the advice of his Council may, and he is hereby empowered and required to cause such and so many magazines as shall be judged necessary, and a laboratory to immediately be erected at the public expence, at such place or places as they shall think proper; and that reasonable satisfaction may be made to the proprietors of all lands which by virtue of this act may be taken and appropriated to the uses aforesaid, the clerk of the county wherein any such land shall lie, is hereby empowered and required, on requisition from the Governor for the time being, to issue a writ _ad quod dammon_, to be directed to the sheriff of the said county, commanding him to summon and empannel twelve able discreet freeholders of the vicinage, no ways concerned in interest in the said lands, nor related to the owners or proprietors thereof, to meet on the said lands respectively on a certain day to be mentioned in the said writ, not under five, nor more than ten days from the date thereof, of which notice shall be given to the respective proprietors of the said lands, if they be to be found within the county, and if not, then to their respective agents if any there be; which freeholders take nothing on pain of being discharged from the inquest and immediately imprisoned by the sheriff, either of meat or drink from any person whatever, from the time they came to the said place until their inquest sealed, shall be charged by the said sheriff impartially, and to the best of their skill and judgment to value the lands on which the said magazines and laboratory are to be erected, to be laid off by order of the Governor, and not exceeding three acres for each of said buildings; and after such valuation made, the said sheriff shall forthwith return the same under the hands and seals of the said jurors, to the clerk's office of the said county; and the right and property of the said lands so laid off and valued, shall be immediately devested and be transferred to this commonwealth in fee simple; any want of consent or disability to consent in the said owners notwithstanding. The cost of building such magazines and laboratory, the cost of the said inquest, and the several sums at which the rights of the owners are valued, shall be paid by the Treasurer, out of the public money in his hands, to the undertakers of the said magazines and laboratory, to the said proprietors and others respectively entitled, on warrants from the Auditors, countersigned by the Governor.
A Collection of All Such Public Acts of the General Assembly, and Ordinances of the Conventions of Virginia, Passed since the year 1768, as are now in force; With a Table of the Principal Matters (Richmond: Thomas Nicolson and William Prentis, 1785); The First Laws of the State of Virginia (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, Inc., "The First Laws of the Original Thirteen States," 1982), Compiled by John D. Cushing, at 129-130.
___
At a General Assembly begun and held at the Public Buildings in the City of Richmond, on Monday the 21st day of October, in the Year of our Lord 1782.
Chap. XII.
An act for the recovery of arms and accoutrements belonging to the state.
I. Whereas sundry arms and accoutrements belonging to the public in the hands of individuals, who have neglected to return them to the proper officers; and it is necessary that such arms and accoutrements should be recovered as speedily as possible: Be it enacted, that the Governor do, on the passing of this act, issue his proclamation, enjoining all persons having in their possession any arms or accoutrements whatsoever, belonging to the state, to deliver them without delay to the Lieutenant or commanding officer of the county for the time being; and the sheriff of each county within this commonwealth, shall cause copies of the said proclamations, which shall be transmitted to him by the Executive, to be fixed up in the most public places in his county, and if after one month from such public notice having been given, any person possessing any such public arms or accoutrements, shall be convicted of having failed to deliver them up as aforesaid, such person shall, upon every such conviction, be liable to the penalty of twenty pounds, to be recovered by action of debt, bill, plaint, or information, in any court of record within this commonwealth, one half of which penalty shall go to the informer, on conviction of the offender, and the other half shall be applied in aid of the county levy where such offender shall reside. And the Lieutenant, or commanding officer of each county, shall make returns from time to time, to the Executive, of all arms and accoutrements so delivered to him, and also deliver them to the order of the Executive, under the penalty, if he fail in all or any part of his duty, of fifty pounds, to be recovered as aforesaid, and applied in diminution of the county levy. Provided always, that where muskets and bayonets have been by order of government placed in any county on eastern or western frontier for defence against incursions of the enemy, it shall be lawful for the Lieutenant or commanding officer to return such muskets and bayonets to the militia, taking a receipt from each person for what shall be so returned.
A Collection of All Such Public Acts of the General Assembly, and Ordinances of the Conventions of Virginia, Passed since the year 1768, as are now in force; With a Table of the Principal Matters (Richmond: Thomas Nicolson and William Prentis, 1785); The First Laws of the State of Virginia (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, Inc., "The First Laws of the Original Thirteen States," 1982), Compiled by John D. Cushing, at 176.
___
The central problem with you gun-nuts is that you believe the Founders were as ignorant and stupid as you are. Above all the Founders believed in the rule of law. "Justice and the Rule of Law are to be ABOVE politics." -- John Adams.
2
-
@emmittmatthews8636 AGAIN:
The SOURCES of the Second amendment were FOUR STATE constitution Militia Clauses. "The right of the people", etc., IS the well-regulated Militia.
The PURPOSE of the Second Amendment is shown in the DEBATES of its WRITING: to establish a NATIONAL DEFENSE relying on the well-regulated Militia. In that it protected the STATES' right to keep their well-regulated Militia, which already existed, and were ALL ALONG GOVERNED AND REGULATED under constitutions and laws.
The Amendment DID NOT prevent the Federal gov't from using the Militia -- the Amendment, AGAIN, was intended to establish a NATIONAL defense relying on the Militia, as had already been established in the Constitution with Art. I., S. 8., C. 15.
And Art. I., S. 8., C. 16:
"The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia . . . reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers [which was done by the state's governor and legislature], and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS."
2
-
@emmittmatthews8636 "The Federalist" is NOT LAW. And James Madison was not the only member of the Congress.
Madison provided the first draft of what became the Second Amendment, but he DID NOT WRITE IT. First, the sources for it were four state constitution Militia Clauses, in which "the right of the people", etc., IS the well-regulated Militia.
And the DEBATES and WRITING of the Bill of Rights was by BOTH House AND SENATE. Madison was not a Senator.
As for "The Federalist," which was extra-Congressional newspaper articles written anonymously: it was admittedly an ADVERTISING campaign intended to SELL the Constitution. It was PROPAGANDA. And there is this:
". . . . I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. . . ." "Federalist No. 84."
2
-
@emmittmatthews8636 " I've defeated your attempt to claim that guns were "public use".
False. See the following, and note the dates:
___
Chap. XXIX.
An act to enable the Governor to provide a laboratory and proper magazines for the reception of arms, ammunition, and other public stores.
1. Whereas it is expedient that proper magazines for the reception of arms, ammunition, and other public stores, and a laboratory be speedily provided, Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that the Governor with the advice of his Council may, and he is hereby empowered and required to cause such and so many magazines as shall be judged necessary, and a laboratory to immediately be erected at the public expence, at such place or places as they shall think proper; and that reasonable satisfaction may be made to the proprietors of all lands which by virtue of this act may be taken and appropriated to the uses aforesaid, the clerk of the county wherein any such land shall lie, is hereby empowered and required, on requisition from the Governor for the time being, to issue a writ _ad quod dammon_, to be directed to the sheriff of the said county, commanding him to summon and empannel twelve able discreet freeholders of the vicinage, no ways concerned in interest in the said lands, nor related to the owners or proprietors thereof, to meet on the said lands respectively on a certain day to be mentioned in the said writ, not under five, nor more than ten days from the date thereof, of which notice shall be given to the respective proprietors of the said lands, if they be to be found within the county, and if not, then to their respective agents if any there be; which freeholders take nothing on pain of being discharged from the inquest and immediately imprisoned by the sheriff, either of meat or drink from any person whatever, from the time they came to the said place until their inquest sealed, shall be charged by the said sheriff impartially, and to the best of their skill and judgment to value the lands on which the said magazines and laboratory are to be erected, to be laid off by order of the Governor, and not exceeding three acres for each of said buildings; and after such valuation made, the said sheriff shall forthwith return the same under the hands and seals of the said jurors, to the clerk's office of the said county; and the right and property of the said lands so laid off and valued, shall be immediately devested and be transferred to this commonwealth in fee simple; any want of consent or disability to consent in the said owners notwithstanding. The cost of building such magazines and laboratory, the cost of the said inquest, and the several sums at which the rights of the owners are valued, shall be paid by the Treasurer, out of the public money in his hands, to the undertakers of the said magazines and laboratory, to the said proprietors and others respectively entitled, on warrants from the Auditors, countersigned by the Governor.
A Collection of All Such Public Acts of the General Assembly, and Ordinances of the Conventions of Virginia, Passed since the year 1768, as are now in force; With a Table of the Principal Matters (Richmond: Thomas Nicolson and William Prentis, 1785); The First Laws of the State of Virginia (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, Inc., "The First Laws of the Original Thirteen States," 1982), Compiled by John D. Cushing, at 129-130.
___
At a General Assembly begun and held at the Public Buildings in the City of Richmond, on Monday the 21st day of October, in the Year of our Lord 1782.
Chap. XII.
An act for the recovery of arms and accoutrements belonging to the state.
I. Whereas sundry arms and accoutrements belonging to the public in the hands of individuals, who have neglected to return them to the proper officers; and it is necessary that such arms and accoutrements should be recovered as speedily as possible: Be it enacted, that the Governor do, on the passing of this act, issue his proclamation, enjoining all persons having in their possession any arms or accoutrements whatsoever, belonging to the state, to deliver them without delay to the Lieutenant or commanding officer of the county for the time being; and the sheriff of each county within this commonwealth, shall cause copies of the said proclamations, which shall be transmitted to him by the Executive, to be fixed up in the most public places in his county, and if after one month from such public notice having been given, any person possessing any such public arms or accoutrements, shall be convicted of having failed to deliver them up as aforesaid, such person shall, upon every such conviction, be liable to the penalty of twenty pounds, to be recovered by action of debt, bill, plaint, or information, in any court of record within this commonwealth, one half of which penalty shall go to the informer, on conviction of the offender, and the other half shall be applied in aid of the county levy where such offender shall reside. And the Lieutenant, or commanding officer of each county, shall make returns from time to time, to the Executive, of all arms and accoutrements so delivered to him, and also deliver them to the order of the Executive, under the penalty, if he fail in all or any part of his duty, of fifty pounds, to be recovered as aforesaid, and applied in diminution of the county levy. Provided always, that where muskets and bayonets have been by order of government placed in any county on eastern or western frontier for defence against incursions of the enemy, it shall be lawful for the Lieutenant or commanding officer to return such muskets and bayonets to the militia, taking a receipt from each person for what shall be so returned.
A Collection of All Such Public Acts of the General Assembly, and Ordinances of the Conventions of Virginia, Passed since the year 1768, as are now in force; With a Table of the Principal Matters (Richmond: Thomas Nicolson and William Prentis, 1785); The First Laws of the State of Virginia (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, Inc., "The First Laws of the Original Thirteen States," 1982), Compiled by John D. Cushing, at 176.
___
Those are PUBLIC arms.
___
And despite the rhetoric in The Federalist -- which, again, is NOT LAW -- the Founders in actual reality engaged in every form of gun control including prohibition and confiscation:
___
Chapter DCCXXIX.
An Ordinance Respecting the Arms of Non-Associators.
Whereas the non-associators in this state have either refused or neglected to deliver up their arms according to the resolves of the honorable Continental Congress and the assembly of Pennsylvania, and effectual measures have not been taken to carry the said resolves into execution:
[Section I.] Be it therefore ordained by the authority of this Convention, That the colonel or next officer in command of every band of militia in this state is hereby authorized, empowered and required to collect, receive and take all the arms in his district or township nearest to such officer which are in the hands of non-associators in the most expeditious and effectual manner in his power, and shall give to the owners receipts for such arms, specifying the amount of the appraisement; and such as can be repaired shall with all possible dispatch be rendered fit for service, and the value according to the appraisement of all such arms, together with the repairs and transportation, shall be paid to the officers by the treasurer on the order of the council of safety for the use of the owners and defraying the charges.
[Section II.] And be it further ordained, That the same arms shall be appraised by any three reputable freeholders appointed by the commanding officer; but if the owner of any arms shall neglect or refuse to apply for such money within six months the same shall be applied towards the repairs of the arms; and the colonels are hereby authorized to draw for the necessary sums of money for the purposes aforesaid on the council of safety.
[Section III.] And it is further ordained, That the colonels aforesaid shall arm the associators with the said arms and keep an account to whom they are delivered and return the same to the council of safety; and every associator shall be answerable for such arms or the value unless lost or destroyed by some unavoidable accident or in actual service.
[Section IV.] And be it further ordained, That in case any arms so collected shall not be worth repairing, the same shall be laid by until such time as may be thought proper by the committee of the county to return them to the owners.
___
Passed July 19, 1776. "Ordinances passed by the Constitutional Convention, June-September, 1776," The Statutes at Large of the State of Pennsylvania from 1682 to 1801, Vol. IX, 1776 to 1779 (Wm. Stanley Ray, State Printer of Pennsylvania, 1903), Edited by Commissioners James T. Mitchell and Henry Flanders, at 11.
2
-
2
-
@emmittmatthews8636 There are some excellent videos on youtube by lawyer and law professor Noah Feldman about the Founders. He also wrote a biography of Madison.
It is important to know the facts on the ground -- who the individual Founders actually were. As example, Hamilton was a backstabbing snake. During the so-called "revolution," for lack of funds, ordinary soldiers were paid with IOUs. After the war there was a depression, and those veterans were desperate for money but the gov't was broke. Hamilton and his friends went around and bought up the IOUs for pennies on the dollar, then turned them into the gov't for 100 pennies on the dollar.
Madison was against a bill of rights before he was for a bill of rights. Feldman provides the facts as to why -- it involved Patrick Henry, who boldly said "Give me liberty or give me death!" while a member of the House of Burgesses and far, far from the battlefield.
Henry asked the House of Burgesses to appoint him head of the Virginia militia, but it refused because his colleagues viewed him as unstable.
Also: Madison wanted the proposed "bill of rights" interspersed within the body of the Constitution. That didn't happen because he didn't have the only say on ANY matter.
And for John Adams -- see the lectures by David McCullough, also on youtube. He was the only Founder to never own slaves, and to vocally oppose slavery. He wrote the Massachusetts constitution, most significantly establishing separation of powers, which was the model for the US Constitution.
It was Adams who pushed the "Declaration" through the Congress. But as he was "obnoxious & disliked" (his own words) he knew that a resolution from Massachusetts would have been voted down, so he persuaded Virginia to submit that resolution, and it was accepted. Still, as Adams was the constant sparkplug on the issue, his colleagues figured he should write it. Instead, he had Jefferson appointed to write it because "better at language" (than Adams); actually, giving the southern state of Virginia some glory was likely to bring other Southern states along.
AFTER Jefferson wrote it Franklin and Adams went through it and made changes. AFTER that the whole Congress debated it and made changes. See the film "1776," which is largely accurate.
In France, while gadfly Jefferson was hobnobbing with the aristocracy and Franklin was whoring ("bedroom diplomacy"?), Adams was in Holland negotiating with the bankers for a loan -- which the US desperately needed to fund the war. During those several years he fell ill and almost died. He established there the first US embassy -- which was essential to other nations' recognizing American independence.
If you don't read the McCullough biography of Adams then see the HBO miniseries -- "John Adams" -- based on it, available as DVD and Blu-Ray. The extraordinary length of accomplishments FOR the country by John Adams would leave even skeptics speechless. History has given him short-shrift. And I'll say it again: his cousin Samuel was a propagandist and demagogue, whereas John put rule of law ABOVE politics. In one scene Sam and his violent mob -- the so-called "Liberty Boys" -- are chellenged John to "pick a side". John responds (paraphrase), "The law is my side -- is there another? He did say: "Justice and the Rule of law are to be ABOVE politics.
Again: it is essential to know who the Founders were as individuals, and what they were for -- Feldman shows that Madison was "three different" people, sequentially; things he was for he was later against; things he was against he was later for.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This is the typical gun-nut: illiterate in both actual history and law:
"you're suggesting that the founders wrote an amendment while the British Army was invading New York and killing colonists that would place arms only in the hands of government forces?"
1. The so-called "revolution" -- it was in fact a civil war; "revolution" is "overthrow of gov't," whereas the Founders "attacked" and "overthrew" ZERO gov'ts because the Founders all along controlled the colony gov'ts.
2. The so-called "revolution" was over when the Founders wrote and ratified the Constitution, completion of which ratification was on: June 21, 1788.
The "Bill of Rights" was written by the first Congress under the newly-ratified Constitution. It was submitted to the states for consideration and ratification on: September 25, 1789.
It was ratified by the required number of states on December 15, 1791.
3. Per the Debates of the CONGRESS that WROTE the "Bill of Rights," the Second Amendment's purpose was to establish a National Defense relying on the well-regulated militia. The Amendment both established that the states could keep their well-regulated militia -- protection against infringement by the Federal gov't -- and established the authority of the CONGRESS -- see Supremacy Clause -- to subject the state militias to Federal regulation.
4. The ENTIRE Constitution is in effect at the same time, and includes FOUR "Militia Clauses," the FOURTH being the Second Amendment. These are the first two:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide" -- Congress "provides" by MAKING LAWS, LAWS REGULATE -- "for calling forth the Militia[/National Guard] to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions."
To "take up arms" against the gov't is INSURRECTION.
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia[/National Guard] . . . reserving to the States [GOV'T] respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS."
5. Constitutional provisions are implemented by means of STATUTES, in this context, "Militia Acts".
On May 2, 1792, the Congress enacted, "An act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions".
On May 8, 1792, the Congress enacted, "An act more effectually to provide for the national defence by establishing an uniform militia throughout the United States".
The Congress also enacted subsequent "Militia Acts," including response to the "Whiskey" insurrection in Pennsylvania.
2
-
The "phrase" "the right of the people" etc. was drawn from the four STATE constitution Militia Clauses that were the sources of the Second Amendment.
Or tell us, law-illiterate, the purpose of "public arms".
And in the DRAFTS of that which became the Second Amendment are BOTH the words "people" -- the PLURAL -- and the word "person" -- the INDIVIDUAL. Here's the phrase in which the term "person" -- as distinguished from the plural -- was used:
": but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY -- militia service was a DUTY, NOT a "right"] to render military service [in well-regulated Militia] in person."
That was the ONLY posited individual "right" -- to NOT serve Militia DUTY -- debated concerning the Amendment, and it was OBVIOUSLY VOTED DOWN BEFORE the Amendment was ratified. THEREFORE there is NO "individual right" ANYWHERE in the Second Amendment.
Moreover, that phrase is embedded in a controlling and limiting context, the subject of which is WELL REGULATED MILITIA. Even the "Declaration of Independence" is against you -- yeah, I know: you've never read it, therefore never learned that it includes a list of GRIEVANCES against King George III, these two of which are directly on point -- and they REFUTE your anti-American attacks on the rule of law:
"He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures."
The legislatures MAKE LAWS REGULATING such as the well-regulated Militia.
"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power."
The "Civil Power" is the gov't, which is by definition RULE OF LAW.
2
-
2
-
@boeing757pilot See this:
___
The NRA's Two Second Amendment Lies
The gun industry political front NRA tells two lies about the intent of the Second Amendment.
1. That the Second Amendment protects an "individual" "right" to possess guns.
Comparison with the several prior Supreme Court decisions, and the legislative history -- the Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- shows that Scalia's "Heller" decision is an outlier. In "Heller" he falsely held that the Amendment protects an individual right -- for which he was excoriated by legal experts across the political spectrum for ignoring this adjudicatory standard:
When a conflict over the interpretation of a law cannot be resolved within the text of the law, one reverts to the legislative history of the law -- in this instance Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment.
The facts from those Debates:
The subject of the Amendment is well regulated Militia, and its purpose to establish a National Defense, relying on that Militia. The Militia is not an individual, and is a public institution, regulated under both Federal and state constitutions and laws; thus the Amendment is irrelevant to the issue of private, individual gun ownership:
James Madison is called "the father of the Constitution," and the gun industry/NRA claims that Madison wrote the Second Amendment. If both of those are facts, then the word "people" is consistent in meaning from beginning of the Constitution to the end of the first 10 Amendments. The first three words of the Constitution are "We the people," not, "We the individual".
This is the first draft of that which became the Second Amendment, which the gun industry/NRA calls the "Madison" Amendment -- but which it never quotes. [Here I clarify it for the logic-impaired]:
"The right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear arms [this phrase is the well-regulated Militia, and was drawn from four state constitution Militia Clauses] shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in well-regulated Militia] in person."
Source: Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Paperback, 1991), Edited by Helen E Veit, et al., at 12. (This volume is readily available from Amazon.)
Note the word "compelled": Militia service was a DUTY -- not a "right". And note the words "people" and "person": if a person -- individual -- claimed "religious" exemption from that DUTY, his case was scrutinized individually.
The only "individual" "right" Congress debated was that last clause -- "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service" -- and it was obviously dropped from the proposed Amendment before it was ratified. Thus the Second Amendment obviously does not protect "individual" ANYTHING.
Only by ignoring the legislative history -- Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- could Scalia falsely hold that the Amendment protects an "individual" "right".
2. That the purpose of the Amendment was to establish a "right" to "take up arms" against the gov't -- which is refuted by the Constitution itself:
Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.
The Founders themselves twice established the precedent on the point:
Under the Articles of Confederation, "Shays's" rebellion was suppressed by the state's legitimate well-regulated Militia, and the rebels charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
And under the Constitution, AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, the "Whiskey" rebellion was suppressed by Federalized Militia, lead by George Washington, and the rebels charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
The Congress, as a co-equal branch of gov't, has the authority and power to overturn Supreme Court decisions.
Overturn "Heller".
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bl4ze1t38 "The First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. You can see it uses the word “people” multiple times, pretty clearly referring to each individual person’s right to do all of this stuff."
So you insist that the Framers of the Constitution got it wrong when they wrote, "We the people," instead of, "We the individual"?
Let's look at the first draft -- the so-called "Madison" draft -- of that which became the Second Amendment, shall we? Note how it uses BOTH the word "people" and the word "person". Do you agree that "person" is not "people," and that "person" is "individual"? Or do you reject the rules of grammar -- of which you have an "odd" grasp -- simply because you "DON'T LIKE" them? Read the following as many times as it takes for it to PENETRATE your error:
___
Refuting the NRA's Two Second Amendment Lies
The gun industry political front NRA tells two lies about the intent of the Second Amendment.
1. That the Second Amendment protects an "individual" "right" to possess guns.
Comparison with the several prior Supreme Court decisions, and the legislative history -- the Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- shows that Scalia's Heller decision is an outlier. In Heller he falsely held that the Amendment protects an individual right -- for which he was excoriated by legal experts across the political spectrum for ignoring this adjudicatory standard:
When a conflict over the interpretation of a law cannot be resolved within the text of the law, one reverts to the legislative history of the law -- in this instance Congress's Debates of the writing of the Amendment.
The facts from those Debates:
The subject of the Amendment is well regulated Militia, and its purpose to establish a National Defense, relying on that Militia. The Militia is not an individual, a public institution, and arm OF gov't, regulated under both Federal and state constitutions and laws. The Amendment is irrelevant to the issue of private, individual gun ownership:
James Madison is called "the father of the Constitution," and the gun industry/NRA claims that Madison wrote the Second Amendment. If both of those are facts, then the word "people" is consistent in meaning from the beginning of the Constitution to the end of the first 10 Amendments. The first three words of the Constitution are "We the people," not, "We the individual".
This is the first draft of that which became the Second Amendment, which the gun industry/NRA calls the "Madison" Amendment -- but which it never quotes. [Here I clarify it for the logic-impaired]:
"The right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear arms [this phrase is the well-regulated Militia, and was drawn from four state constitution Militia Clauses] shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in well-regulated Militia] in person."
Source: Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Paperback, 1991), Edited by Helen E Veit, et al., at 12. (This volume is readily available from Amazon.)
Note the word "compelled": Militia service was a DUTY -- not a "right". And note the words "people" and "person": if a person -- individual -- claimed "religious" exemption from that DUTY, his case was scrutinized individually.
The only "individual" "right" Congress debated was that last clause -- "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service" -- and it was obviously voted down before the proposed Amendment was ratified. Thus the Second Amendment obviously does not protect "individual" ANYTHING.
Only by ignoring the legislative history -- Congress's Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- could Scalia falsely hold that the Amendment protects an "individual" "right".
2. That the purpose of the Amendment was to establish a "right" to "take up arms" against the gov't -- which is refuted by the Constitution itself:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS".
The Founders themselves twice established the precedent on the point:
Under the Articles of Confederation, "Shays's" insurrection was suppressed by the state's well-regulated Militia, and the insurrectionists charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
Under the Constitution, AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, the "Whiskey" insurrection was suppressed by Federalized Militia, lead by George Washington, and the insurrectionists charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
The Congress, as a co-equal branch of gov't, has the authority and power to overturn Supreme Court decisions.
Overturn _Heller_.
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
2
-
Only as members of the well-regulated Militia, such membership accomplished either by ENLISTING or BEING DRAFTED.
Service in the Militia was a DUTY, not a "right". And one finds that fact in Congress's DEBATES of its writing of the Second Amendment. This is the only "individual right" the Congress debated regarding that which became the Second Amendment:
": but no PERSON [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be COMPELLED [INVOLUNTARY, as in DRAFT] to render military service [in well-regulated Militia] in person."
The full draft debated included the phrase, "the right of the PEOPLE" -- so the Congress knew the difference between the PLURAL "PEOPLE" and the INDIVIDUAL "PERSON".
Further, as concerns the Militia, the Constitution is also against you in Art. I., S. 8., C. 16:
"The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia".
You are not a "militia," because the Militia is not an individual; and in order to be a member of the Militia -- which is a DUTY, NOT a "right" -- you must either ENLIST or be DAFTED.
2
-
@olympicfireball Actually I'm not. In fact I've been researching these very issues for more than 30 years beginning with the foundings of the several colonies.
The states adopted and ratified constitutions during 1776-77, and 1780. The "Militia Clauses" from four of those constitutions were the sources for the Second Amendment. Those distinguish between two military forces:
1. "The right of the people," etc. -- which was the well-regulated militia.
2. Standing armies.
The inclusion of the phrase, "right of the people," etc., which is a REDUNDANCY for well-regulated militia, shows the continuity in the laws.
One of those four "Militia Clauses" is from the Vermont constitution of 1777:
"Chapter I.--The Bill of Rights.
""XV. That the people have a right [no "keep and"] bear arms for the defense of themselves AND [not "or"] the State; and, as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty they ought not to be kept up; and that they military [which includes well-regulated Militia] should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
SEPARATELY in the SAME constitution:
"Chapter II.--The Plan of Government
"Section XXXIX. That the inhabitants of this State, shall have liberty to hunt and fowl [private individual right to own guns], in seasonable times, on the lands they hold, and on other lands (not enclosed;) . . . under proper regulations, to be hereafter made and provided by the General Assembly."
___
Note the difference between the comments made by you and your fellow gun-nuts: you make law-illiterate assertions without a shred of ANYTHINBG to back them up.
I, in contrast, having an education in law, provide ACTUAL LAW substantiating my statements of the facts.
The problem with you and your fellow gun-nuts is that you are functionally illiterate: you have no regard for truth, and certainly no regard for FACTS AND EVIDENCE, in this context, LAW.
Also of direct relevance are the DEBATES of the WRITING of that which became the Second Amendment. The INTENT was to establish a NATIONAL DEFENSE relying on the well-regulated Militia -- standing armies being "dangerous to liberty". This is further substantiated by the second of two "Militia Acts" enacted on May 8, 1792:
"An act more effectually to provide for the NATIONAL DEFENCE by establishing an uniform MILITIA throughout the United States."
2
-
2
-
1
-
The anti-gov't law illiterates assert that the National Guard is a "standing army," which is not the fact.
The "need" to stipulate IN THE CONSTITUTION the purposes of the Militia/National Guard is expressed in two directly on-point grievances against King George III in the "Declaration of Independence":
"He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of out Legislatures."
"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power."
The "Declaration" has never been law, and applied exclusively to ENGLAND, but those two provisions found their way into state and then US constitutions.
In sum: Civilian control of the military, and no "right" of "revolution"/INSURRECTION:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia/National Guard to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions."
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia . . . reserving to the States [GOV'T] respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of disciplining the Militia/National Guard according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS."
Thus the well-regulated Militia/National Guard is regulated -- Constitutional provisions are implemented by means of STATUTES -- and governed -- by the CIVIL power -- under BOTH US AND STATE constitutions and laws.
You gullibles who repeat non-law and pseudo-law and other such gibberish DON'T KNOW those facts because you DON'T READ the US Constitution, let alone your OWN STATES' constitutions.
There is only ONE Militia/National Guard: that well-regulated -- and governed -- under US and state GOV'T. ALL the fake "militia" in ALL 50 states are classified in law as "paramilitaries" and PROHIBITED.
But I don't expect law-illiterates to actually READ the ACTUAL law -- your STATE constitution and laws are doubtless available from your state legislature's or secretary of state's website -- so they might have some modicum of appearing to know what they're talking about.
1
-
@fastpat1 Citation?
That the National Guard is subject to the orders of the Commander-in-Chief WHEN FEEDERALIZED shouldn't surprise anyone: that fact is stipulated in the Constitution.
And when NOT Federalized the commander-in chief of the Militia/National Guard is the state's GOVERNOR. It's been that way since before there were formal constitutions. As example, the commander-in-chief who oversaw the crushing of 'Shayes's" insurrection under the Articles of Confederation was the state's governor.
And the Federalized Militia, lead by Commander-in-Chief George Washington, crushed the "Whiskey" insurrection AFTER THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS RATIFIED.
It's no secret, based on "Art. I., S. 8., C. 15 & 16, the First Amendment, and the Second Amendment itself, that (a) there is no "right" to engage in insurrection, and (b) an express purpose of the well-regulated Militia/National Guard is the suppression of insurrection (as also was done to "Shays's"). And it's all right there in the Constitution you've never bothered to READ.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@willmont8258 "There would be no need for the 2nd otherwise, since A1, S8 already gives Congress the power to arm the Militia when in the service of the US."
The Congress has been all along arming the well-regulated Militia see Section 1:
___
Chap. LXV.--An Act providing Arms for the Militia throughout the United States.
Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be provided, at the charge and expense of the government of the United States, thirty thousand stand of arms, which shall be deposited by order of the President of the United States, at suitable places, for the purpose of being sold to the governments of the respective States, or the militia thereof, under such regulations, and at such prices as the President of the United States shall prescribe.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby authorized to cause all or any part of the arms herein directed to be provided and deposited for sale, which shall, at any time, remain unsold, to be delivered to the militia, when called into the service of the United States, proper receipts and security being given for the return of the same.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the monies arising from such sales shall be paid into the treasury of the United States, and the amount received shall be annually reported to Congress.
Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That for the purpose of carrying this act into effect, the President of the United States shall be, and he is hereby authorized to draw from the treasury of the United States, a [577] sum not exceeding four hundred thousand dollars, to be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.
Approved, July 6, 1798.
___
The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, from the Organization of the Government in 1789, to March 3, 1845. Arranged in Chronological Order. With References to the Matter of Each Act and to the Subsequent Acts on the Same Subject, and Copious Notes of the Decisions of the Courts of the United States Construing Those Acts, and Upon the Subjects of the Laws. With an Index to the Contents of Each Volume, and a Full General Index to the Whole Work, in the Concluding Volume. Together with the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of the United States; and Also, Tables, in the Last Volume, Containing Lists of the Acts Relating to the Judiciary, Imposts and Tonnage, the Public Lands, Etc., Vol I. (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1850), By Authority of Congress, Edited by Richard Peters, at 576.
1
-
@willmont8258 Tell us who owned the arms in the following -- research "public arms". And note the date of it:
___
At a General Assembly begun and held at the Public Buildings in the City of Richmond, on Monday the 21st day of October, in the Year of our Lord 1782.
Chap. XII.
An act for the recovery of arms and accoutrements belonging to the state.
I. Whereas sundry arms and accoutrements belonging to the public in the hands of individuals, who have neglected to return them to the proper officers; and it is necessary that such arms and accoutrements should be recovered as speedily as possible: Be it enacted, that the Governor do, on the passing of this act, issue his proclamation, enjoining all persons having in their possession any arms or accoutrements whatsoever, belonging to the state, to deliver them without delay to the Lieutenant or commanding officer of the county for the time being; and the sheriff of each county within this commonwealth, shall cause copies of the said proclamations, which shall be transmitted to him by the Executive, to be fixed up in the most public places in his county, and if after one month from such public notice having been given, any person possessing any such public arms or accoutrements, shall be convicted of having failed to deliver them up as aforesaid, such person shall, upon every such conviction, be liable to the penalty of twenty pounds, to be recovered by action of debt, bill, plaint, or information, in any court of record within this commonwealth, one half of which penalty shall go to the informer, on conviction of the offender, and the other half shall be applied in aid of the county levy where such offender shall reside. And the Lieutenant, or commanding officer of each county, shall make returns from time to time, to the Executive, of all arms and accoutrements so delivered to him, and also deliver them to the order of the Executive, under the penalty, if he fail in all or any part of his duty, of fifty pounds, to be recovered as aforesaid, and applied in diminution of the county levy. Provided always, that where muskets and bayonets have been by order of government placed in any county on eastern or western frontier for defence against incursions of the enemy, it shall be lawful for the Lieutenant or commanding officer to return such muskets and bayonets to the militia, taking a receipt from each person for what shall be so returned.
"A Collection of All Such Public Acts of the General Assembly, and Ordinances of the Conventions of Virginia, Passed since the year 1768, as are now in force; With a Table of the Principal Matters" (Richmond: Thomas Nicolson and William Prentis, 1785); "The First Laws of the State of Virginia" (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, Inc., "The First Laws of the Original Thirteen States," 1982), Compiled by John D. Cushing, at 176.
1
-
@willmont8258 " A1, S8 simply gave Congress certain powers over the Militia of the States,"
False. In fact, several of the states included with their ratifications of the Constitution both petitions to be accepted into the Union, and proposed Amendments. Federalist Madison codified the proposed amendments as a RESOLUTION which he submitted to Congress for debate.
The Bill of Rights was not written by Madison; the House debated and wrote it as COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, and the Senate -- of which Madison was not a member -- also weighed in on it.
The Second Amendment established the right of the states to keep their well-regulated Militia, which were already regulated and governed under the states' constitutions and laws, all of which constitutions were adopted in 1776-77 -- except for Massachusetts, which was submitted to the electorate for approval and ratified in October, 1780. Thus the Militia is regulated under BOTH US and state constitutions and laws.
" which were made up of the people armed with their own guns."
False. And I posted a Virginia statute which pre-existed the Constitution and which orders the recovery of weapons, etc., which were PUBLIC ARMS. There is also an account of Sam Adams giving a speech at Fauniel Hall with the arms arrayed across the front of the stage. After the speech the arms were gathered up and returned to the PUBLIC STORES.
And the FICTION of the "embattled farmers" making up the militia is refuted by the actual history. The New England militia, as example, had been hardened by more than 100 years of near-constant wars with the Indians, and since the earliest days of their foundings the colonies were members of a "mutual aid" Confederation of New England Colonies". Thus there was established a regional military command, and the miliitia were thoroughly trained. And at the time of the so-called "revolution" -- it was a civil war; no gov'ts were "attacked" or "overthrown" -- they had the same guns as the British.
And as I've stated, the Founders engaged in every form of gun control, including prohibition and confiscation. As example, they confiscated the guns of those who weren't in the militia and gave them to the militia.
There has never been a time that any gov't has allowed armed gangs to shoot at the gov't. The Founders were no different. As provided in the "Declaration": "He has affected to render the Military to independent of and superior to the Civil Power." They established their view and precedents by suppressing "Shays's" and "Whiskey" insurrections.
1
-
@willmont8258 The Founders applied the same two "Declaration" principles domestically, as I have shown. See Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. as example: that applies within the United States. See the suppression of "Shays's" insurrection by the state militia, and see suppression of the "Whiskey" insurrection by Federalized state militia. No gov't authorizes armed gangs of law-illiterates high on empty arrogance to shoot at the gov't.
The same provisions exist in state law.
As said, there is ONE Militia, and it is the National Guard.
If you want to deny those are the same, then you're still up against the fact that the commander-in-chief of your state the militia -- there is ONE militia -- is the state's GOVERNOR, not a rag-tag- bunch of malcontented law-illiterates strung out on stubborn law-illiterate stupidity.
The first of the following is cognizant of the Supremacy Clause. Those subsequent note that the selection of militia officers is by advice and consent of the legislature, not by crackpot law-illiterates "in the field".
___
SPEECHES
of
His Excellency the Governor
and
Messages Transmitted by His Excellency to the
General Court During the Legislative Year
1792.
__________________
[May Session, 1792.]
. . . .
GENTLEMEN,
I have directed the Secretary to lay before you such Acts & proceedings of the Congress of the United States, as have been forwarded to me: Among them, is an Act for regulating the Militia of the States. That Act appears to me to be quite consonant to the Constitution of the General Government, & I shall, as commander in Chief of the Militia of this State take every measure within my power to render the Militia respectable under it. . . .
JOHN HANCOCK.
Council Chamber, June 6th, 1792.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_Gentlemen of the Senate and Gentlemen of the House of Representatives_,
The Secretary will lay before you a Letter of Resignation from Major General Titcomb of the second Division of the Militia in this Commonwealth--You will please to take such measures in filling up the vacancy as you shall judge best.
JOHN HANCOCK.
Council Chamber, June 14th, 1792
_________________________________________________________________________________________
[May Session, 1792.]
_Gentlemen of the Senate & Gentlemen of the House of Representatives_,
The Secretary will lay before you the Resignation of Major General Newell of the Seventh Division of the Militia in this Commonwealth on account of his ill Health--You will please to take such measures in filling up the Vacancy as you shall judge best.
JOHN HANCOCK.
Council Chamber, June 15th, 1792
_________________________________________________________________________________________
. . . .
[November Session, 1792.]
_Gentlemen of the Senate & Gentlemen of the House of Representatives_,
The Secretary will lay before you the Pay Roll of a Detachment of the Boston Militia which I found myself obliged to order to Castle Island to supply the place of the Troops on the Island who were under the operation of the Small Pox. I engaged they should receive their pay for the service agreeably to the terms of the Roll & submit it to your consideration. Their Conduct while on duty merits notice, & I doubt not they will meet yours. . . .
JOHN HANCOCK.
Concord, Novr. 9, 1792.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@casper3130 This is a "Militia Act" from Plymouth Colony, enacted in 1634.
The mentioned "Court" is the "General Court -- the GOV'T. There was not as yet separation of powers, so the same "Court" enacted the laws, enforced the laws, and conducted trials of those who violated the laws.
The "list" mentioned was the list of those chosen and APPROVED for military DUTY.
Note that the law includes PENALTIES against those who violated military DISCIPLINE. So the FANTASY that militia consisted of random gun-nuts "volunteering" is FALSE.
And note that those approved for the duty were required to SWEAR AN OATH OF LOYALTY to the GOV'T/RULE OF LAW.
Note also that I include the source, which is how LITERATE -- and HONEST -- scholarship works. And that I have BOTH a first edition of this volue, published in 1836, and a reprint of it, in my law library.
___
Appendix 325
Establishment of a Millitary Company.
Aug. 29, 1643.
The Court hath allowed & established a military discipline to be erected and
mayntained by the Towns of Plimouth Duxborrow and Marshfield and have also
heard their orders and established them-viz-
Orders.
1. That the exercise be alwayes begun and ended with prayer.
2. That there be one procured to preach them a sermon once a yeare, viz at
the eleccon of their officers and the first to begin in Septr next.
3. That none shalbe received into this Millitary Company but such as are of
honest and good report & freemen not servants, and shalbe well approved by the
Officers and the whole Company or the major part.
4. That every person after they have recorded their names in the Millitary
List shall from tyme to tyme be subject to the Comaunds and Orders of the
Officers of this Millitary Company in their places respectively.
5. That every delinquent shalbe punished at the discretion of the Officers
and the Millitary Company or the major part thereof according to the order of
Millitary discipline & nature of the offence.
6. That all talking and not keepeing sylence during the time of the
exercise jereing quarrelling fighting depting collers wthout lycence or
dismission &c or any other misdemeanor, (so adjudged to be by the Officers and
the Company or the majr pt thereof) to be accounted misdemeanors to be
punished as aforesaid.
7. That every man that shalbe absent (except he be sick or some extrodinary
occation or hand of God upon him) shall pay for every such default II_s_. And
if he refuse to pay it upon demaund or within one month after then to appear
before the Company and be distrayned for it and put out of the list.
8. That if any man shall (upon the dayes appoynted) come wthout his armes
or wth defective armes shall forfaite for every trayneing day as followeth--
For want of a musket or a peece approved every time- - - - VI_d_
For want of a sword - - - - - - - - - VI_d_
For want of a vest - - - - - - - - - VI_d_
For want of bandelires- - - - - - - - - VI_d_
Six months tyme given to prvide in.
9. That every man that hath entred himself upon the military list and hath
not sufficient armes & doth not or will not prcure them wthin six months next
ensuing his name to be put out of the list.
10. That there be but sixteene pikes in the whole company (or at the most
for the third pt) viz--VIII for Plimouth VI for Duxborrow and II for
Marshfield.
11. That all that are or shalbe elected chiefe Officers in this Millitary
Company shall be so titled and forever afterwards be so reputed except he
obtayne a higher place.
12. That every man entred into the Millitary list shall pay VI_d_ the
quarter to the use of the Company.
13. That when any of this Millitary Company shall dye or depart this life
the company upon warneing shall come together with their armes and inter his
corpes as a souldier and according to his place and quallytye.
14. That all that shalbe admitted into this Millitary Company shall first
take the oath of fydellyty if they have not taken it already or els be not
admitted.
15. That all postures of pike and musket, motions rankes and files &c
messengers skirmishes seiges batteries watches sentinells &c bee alwayes
prformed according to true millitary discipline.
16. That all that will enter themselves upon this Company shalbe propounded
one day received the next day if they be approved.
___
"The Compact with the Charter and Laws of the Colony of New Plymouth: Together with the harter of the Council at Plymouth, and An Appendix, Containing the Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England, and Other Valuabe Documents. Published Agreeably to a Resolution, Passed April 5, 1836" (Boston: Dutton and Wentworth, Printers to the State, 1836), Under the Suprevision of William Brigham.
1
-
@willmont8258 I already refuted the assertion that states can't have standing armies without the consent of Congress: EVERY state constitution has essentially the same Militia Clause -- distinguishing between "right of the people, etc./well-regulated Militia, and standing armies, both being also under the state legislature.
To again refute your false assertion about private citizens "acting on behalf of" gov't.:
See "Presser v. Illinois," 116 U.S. 252 (1886), the Second Amendment case distinguishing between the state's well-regulated Militia, and affirming the illegality of private "military organizations," fake "militia," armed gangs outside the law.
And see, citing "Presser," "District of Columbia v. Heller," 554 U.S. 570, 621 (2008), affirming that the Second Amendment "does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary [fake "militia"] organizations".
Paramilitary organizations are illegal in all 50 states. Pick your state:
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/our-work/addressing-the-rise-of-unlawful-private-paramilitaries/state-fact-sheets/
1
-
1
-
@emmittmatthews8636 That is Federal law. How many times was the Militia Federalized before the "Whiskey" insurrection?
And what are the dates of the Virginia statutes establishing PUBLIC ARMS, and also retrieving them, under PENALTY if NOT returned?
In 1794 -- AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, the Militia was Federalized in response to the "Whiskey" insurrection.
Which of those two was well-regulated UNDER the rule of law -- Constitution and statute -- and which was ATTACKING the rule of law?
Did the Federal gov't need to arm Militia that was already armed by the states?
___
U.S. Constitution, Art. I., S. 8., C. 16: The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for . . . ARMING . . . the Militia".
___
Chap. LXV.--An Act providing Arms for the Militia throughout the United States.
Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be provided, at the charge and expense of the government of the United States, thirty thousand stand of arms, which shall be deposited by order of the President of the United States, at suitable places, for the purpose of being sold to the governments of the respective States, or the militia thereof, under such regulations, and at such prices as the President of the United States shall prescribe.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby authorized to cause all or any part of the arms herein directed to be provided and deposited for sale, which shall, at any time, remain unsold, to be delivered to the militia, when called into the service of the United States, proper receipts and security being given for the return of the same.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the monies arising from such sales shall be paid into the treasury of the United States, and the amount received shall be annually reported to Congress.
Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That for the purpose of carrying this act into effect, the President of the United States shall be, and he is hereby authorized to draw from the treasury of the United States, a [577] sum not exceeding four hundred thousand dollars, to be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.
Approved, July 6, 1798.
___
The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, from the Organization of the Government in 1789, to March 3, 1845. Arranged in Chronological Order. With References to the Matter of Each Act and to the Subsequent Acts on the Same Subject, and Copious Notes of the Decisions of the Courts of the United States Construing Those Acts, and Upon the Subjects of the Laws. With an Index to the Contents of Each Volume, and a Full General Index to the Whole Work, in the Concluding Volume. Together with the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of the United States; and Also, Tables, in the Last Volume, Containing Lists of the Acts Relating to the Judiciary, Imposts and Tonnage, the Public Lands, Etc., Vol I. (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1850), By Authority of Congress, Edited by Richard Peters, at 576.
____________
You keep trying to argue that there is a "right" to "take up arms" against the gov't -- against the rule of law -- based upon the FALSE malconstruction of the Second Amendment, and ignorance of the fact that "the right of the people to [keep and] bear arms" IS the well-regulated Militia.
As I've shown, the militia was ALWAYS UNDER the rule of law, and there was ALWAYS provision in law to SUPPRESS armed threats to gov't/rule of law.
And ignorance of the FACT that the Founders "attacked" and "overthrew" ZERO gov'ts. The well-regulated militia, under the state's governor as commander-in-chief, is an arm OF gov't, NOT intended to be a THREAT to gov't.
1
-
@emmittmatthews8636 "you ignore 232 years of text, history, laws, Supreme Court rulings, etc that prove you wrong."
I adhere strictly to LAW, which is what I've been posting IN YOUR FACE. You do nothing to address that; instead you engage in stupid-assed name-calling because you CAN'T refute the laws I put IN YOUR FACE.
___
From Supreme Court decision _Presser v. Illinois_, 116 U.S. 252 (1886):
"(115) . . . . It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions . . . have . . . the power to control and regulate the organization, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations . . . . (116) The exercise of this power by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine."
____
There is no "right" to "take up arms" against gov't/rule of law.-- which is INSURRECTION, which the FOUNDERS charged, tried, and convicted as being TREASON. See "Shays's" and "Whiskey" insurrections.
I have an education in law and have been researching and studying these issues for more than 30 years. That is why, punk, I am able to QUOTE VERBATIM LAW from the foundings of the colonies to and through the so-called "revolution," and to and through ratifications of Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The Founders engaged in every form of gun control including confiscation and prohibition -- and what they did is presumptively constitutional. Even Scalia admitted in Heller that gun control is Constitutional -- the EVIDENCE in LAW for that fact is OVERWHELMING, as I've been showing IN YOUR FACE.
1
-
@emmittmatthews8636 AGAIN: The Federalist is NOT LAW. And The Federalist "says" things that contradict your wishful thinking.
I post STATUTES -- LAW. You don't read them because you're too stupid to recognize what IS law and what isn't.
You also claim that Madison wrote the Second Amendment. That's the gun-nut view -- but it is NOT THE REALITY.
Madison codified PROPOSED amendments submitted by states with their notices of ratification of the Constitution. He then submitted that as a RESOLUTION for a bill of rights to the House for DEBATE.
The House, as a COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, debated the DETAILS of the resolution -- and the SENATE did the same. Madison was not a Senator.
This is the Madison DRAFT of the proposed Amendment, which at that point and throughout most of the debates was the SIXTH. Note how he knew the difference between "people" -- the PLURAL -- and "person" -- the INDIVIDUAL --
___
This is the first draft of that which became the Second Amendment, which the gun industry/NRA calls the "Madison" Amendment -- but which it never quotes. [Here I clarify it for the logic-impaired]:
"The right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear arms [this phrase is the well-regulated Militia, and was drawn from four state constitution Militia Clauses] shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in well-regulated Militia] in person."
Source: Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Paperback, 1991), Edited by Helen E Veit, et al., at 12. (This volume is readily available from Amazon.)
Note the word "compelled": Militia service was a DUTY -- not a "right". And note the words "people" and "person": if a person -- individual -- claimed "religious" exemption from that DUTY, his case was scrutinized individually.
The only "individual" "right" debated was that last clause -- "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service" -- and it was obviously voted down before the proposed Amendment was ratified. Thus the Second Amendment obviously does not protect "individual" ANYTHING.
1
-
@emmittmatthews8636 Personal attack noted -- as effort to avoid and ignore the law. I'll make it simple for you:
You say you agree with Presser which, consistent with, as I've shown, U.S. Constitution Art. I., S. 8., C. 15, prohibits "taking up arms" against the gov't. At the same time, you insist that there is a "right" to "take up arms" against the gov't. You can't have it both ways.
The entire history on the point, beginning at latest in the 1600s, is against your claim. That includes even the "Declaration of Independence".
The law is clear; all I do is show the the law, and the increasing specificity of it, as is shown in Presser . I leave the lying to those who, like you, reject the rule of law by claiming a "freedom" that does not exist. From the 1784 New Hampshire constitution:
"III. When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to insure the protection of others [AND OF THEMSELVES]".
"A system of Laws, and not of men." -- John Adams.
"Justice and the Rule of Law are to be ABOVE politics." -- John Adams.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@billbillerton6122 This is the FOUNDERS view of the Second Amendment. Are you capable of learning? --
___
The NRA's Two Second Amendment Lies
The gun industry political front NRA tells two lies about the intent of the Second Amendment.
1. That the Second Amendment protects an "individual" "right" to possess guns.
Comparison with the several prior Supreme Court decisions, and the legislative history -- the Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- shows that Scalia's "Heller" decision is an outlier. In "Heller" he falsely held that the Amendment protects an individual right -- for which he was excoriated by legal experts across the political spectrum for ignoring this adjudicatory standard:
When a conflict over the interpretation of a law cannot be resolved within the text of the law, one reverts to the legislative history of the law -- in this instance Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment.
The facts from those Debates:
The subject of the Amendment is well regulated Militia, and its purpose to establish a National Defense, relying on that Militia. The Militia is not an individual, and is a public institution, regulated under both Federal and state constitutions and laws; thus the Amendment is irrelevant to the issue of private, individual gun ownership:
James Madison is called "the father of the Constitution," and the gun industry/NRA claims that Madison wrote the Second Amendment. If both of those are facts, then the word "people" is consistent in meaning from beginning of the Constitution to the end of the first 10 Amendments. The first three words of the Constitution are "We the people," not, "We the individual".
This is the first draft of that which became the Second Amendment, which the gun industry/NRA calls the "Madison" Amendment -- but which it never quotes. [Here I clarify it for the logic-impaired]:
"The right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear arms [this phrase is the well-regulated Militia, and was drawn from four state constitution Militia Clauses] shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in well-regulated Militia] in person."
Source: Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Paperback, 1991), Edited by Helen E Veit, et al., at 12. (This volume is readily available from Amazon.)
Note the word "compelled": Militia service was a DUTY -- not a "right". And note the words "people" and "person": if a person -- individual -- claimed "religious" exemption from that DUTY, his case was scrutinized individually.
The only "individual" "right" Congress debated was that last clause -- "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service" -- and it was obviously dropped from the proposed Amendment before it was ratified. Thus the Second Amendment obviously does not protect "individual" ANYTHING.
Only by ignoring the legislative history -- Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- could Scalia falsely hold that the Amendment protects an "individual" "right".
2. That the purpose of the Amendment was to establish a "right" to "take up arms" against the gov't -- which is refuted by the Constitution itself:
Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.
The Founders themselves twice established the precedent on the point:
Under the Articles of Confederation, "Shays's" rebellion was suppressed by the state's legitimate well-regulated Militia, and the rebels charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
And under the Constitution, AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, the "Whiskey" rebellion was suppressed by Federalized Militia, lead by George Washington, and the rebels charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
The Congress, as a co-equal branch of gov't, has the authority and power to overturn Supreme Court decisions.
Overturn "Heller".
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@willmont8258 "State" = GOV'T.
AGAIN: the ENTIRE Constitution is in effect at the same time:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions."
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia . . . reserving to the STATES [GOV'T] the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS."
As shown by the DEBATES of those who WROTE the amendment, the subject is WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. A Militia is NOT an individual, it is a public institution, and has ALWAYS been an arm OF gov't.
The State's militia -- the commander-in-chief of which is the STATE'S GOVERNOR -- is under the REGULATION and governance of BOTH US and state constitutions AT THE SAME TIME.
Constitutional provisions are implemented by means of STATUTES -- "Militia Acts". What have you read OTHERR than gun industry propaganda pumped out by the NRA? NOTHING.
There is no other "militia"; we know from the Constitution, and the "Declaration," that the Founders were OPPOSED to armed gangs running around outside and shooting at the gov't. From the "Declaration":
"[King George III] has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power."
I also note the Founders' responses to "Shays's" and Whiskey" insurrections.
READ YOUR STATE CONSTITUTION: from that you'll learn that the well-regulated Militia, by the mere fact that it is IN that constitution, is REGULATED AND GOVERNED UNDER LAW.
As I've made clear, the INTENT of the Second Amendment was to establish a National Defense relying on the well-regulated Militia. In so doing it BOTH guaranteed that the states -- GOV'T -- could keep their well-regulated Militia, AND that those Militia would ALSO be REGULATED and governed BY THE FEDERAL GOV'T.
I also made clear that there was ONE "individual right" Debated -- to NOT bear arms, to NOT render MILITARY SERVICE, in the Militia. That was VOTED DOWN before the proposed amendment was ratified.
1
-
1
-
@willmont8258 AGAIN, history- and law-illiterate:
The DEBATES of the WRITING of the Second Amendment were EXPRESSLY about establishing a National Defense as ALTERNATIVE to a standing army, which latter were views as "dangerous to liberty," which latter was not intended to exist except as necessary.
On one hand, the Founders didn't trust democracy, but did not reject it: they institutionalized it as the elected Congress. On the other, they didn't trust standing armies, but did not reject them as an option.
Again, from the "Declaration of Independence" -- which, of course, you and your fellow gun-nuts have NEVER READ:
"[King George III] has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures."
"[King George III] has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power."
The Constitution -- the Second Amendment -- is not a suicide pact:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS".
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for . . . ARMING . . . the Militia."
So tell us all:
Where do the "fake" anti-gov't insurrectionist "militia" get their "arms"?
You and your fellow gun-nuts have the least knowledge of how law works, or the hierarchy of law. You know nothing of the actual history, legal and otherwise; you're all drunk on whitewashed FICTIONS and fantasies of being manly man macho tough guys shooting at that which is the gov't, per the Constitution:
"We the people".
You aren't defending gun rights; You are defending mass murder of your fellow citizens.
1
-
1
-
1
-
States don't have "rights"? Then why do the white supremacist insurrectionist "conservatives" falsely insist that "states rights" are SUPERIOR to Federal law despite the Supremacy Clause in the Federal Constitution?
In addition to rejecting the rule of law you want to believe the nonsense that "rights" exist antagonistically against rule of law. That is the most fundamental CORRUPTION: the Founders were for "Liberty WITHIN the law". In other words, you wouldn't know what "rights" to claim if they weren't secured in WRITING.
I recommended to you "A Treatise of Courts Martial and Military Law" (1813) by Isaac Maltby. His "Introduction" begins:
"This treatise was originally undertaken, in compliance with the solicitation of military gentlemen; and solely with a view to the militia. In the prosecution of the work, it was frequently necessary to refer to the acts and articles of war of the United States. The State laws and those of the United States_, the duties of the regular soldier and the citizen soldier, were so blended, it was determined to bring the whole subject under consideration. The militia man is indeed deeply interested in _all its details, being liable to the same pains and penalties, and to the same rules and regulations, by the articles of war, as the individual of the regular army. Besides this personal interest_, which every militia officer has at stake, in these discussions, there is also a _public interest involved. He owes certain duties to the public . . . ."
Maltby also includes, in his "Appendix," complete copy of the Massachusetts-Bay
"An Act for establishing Rules and Articles for governing the troops stationed in forts and garrisons, within this commonwealth; and also the militia, or any part thereof, when called into actual service," enacted October 24, 1786.
That also indicates that there were "troops" other than the militia. Thus the "blending": the same rules applying to regular military also applying to militia. And you want to believe that playing militia is a "right" by pretending one has a "right" to act "on behalf of" the gov't. I encourage reading "Presser" to learn why that is FALSE; and why "private" military organizations, paramilitaries, fake "militia," and armed gangs running around outside the law -- all the same thing -- are, under "Presser," prohibited.
It is the "discipline" -- Sixty-Two sections, each stipulating an offense, some being prohibitions against swearing and other harsh language, some stipulating the death penalty, all prosecutable by courts martial.
1
-
1
-
Only to law-illiterates.
1. The sources of that which became the Second Amendment (it was first the "Sixth," then the IVth) were the lengthy legal history beginning with the establishment of the several colonies, which eventuated in "Militia Clauses" in the state constitutions.
2. The direct sources for the Second amendment were four State constitution "Militia Clauses," which addressed BOTH Militia and standing armies. Of the four the most elegant, and based on reading of all the prior state constitutions, is that in the Massachusetts-By constitution of 1780:
"XVII. The people have a right to keep and bear arms [this is the well-regulated Militia] for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, [standing] armies aare dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the onsent of the Legislature; and the military power [which obviously includes the well-regulated Militia as the ONLY CONSTANT military force] SHALL ALWAYS be held in an exact subordination to the Civil authority [GOV'T, which is by definition RULE OF LAW], and be governed by it."
Another of the four state Militia Clauses that were the sources of the Second Amendment was from the Vermont constitution of July 8, 1777:
"Chapter I.
. . . .
"XV. That the people have a right to bear arms [as well-regulated, UNDER LAW, Militia] for the defence of themselves AND the State [GOV'T/RULE OF LAW]; and, as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military [which OBVIOUSLY includes Militia] should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power [GOV'T]."
The implementing STATUTES are termed "Militia Acts".
SEPARATELY, in Chapter II, is THIS:
"S. XXXIX. That the inhabitants of this State, shall have liberty to hunt and fowl, in seasonble times [as REGULATED BY LAW], on the lands they hold, and on other lands (not enclosed;) . . . under proper regulations, to be hereafter made and provided by the General Assembly."
Only CRIMINALS claim to be exempt from the rule of law.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The NRA's Two Second Amendment Lies
The gun industry political front NRA tells two lies about the intent of the Second Amendment.
1. That the Second Amendment protects an "individual" "right" to possess guns.
Comparison with the several prior Supreme Court decisions, and the legislative history -- the Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- shows that Scalia's "Heller" decision is an outlier. In "Heller" he falsely held that the Amendment protects an individual right -- for which he was excoriated by legal experts across the political spectrum for ignoring this adjudicatory standard:
When a conflict over the interpretation of a law cannot be resolved within the text of the law, one reverts to the legislative history of the law -- in this instance Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment.
The facts from those Debates:
The subject of the Amendment is well regulated Militia, and its purpose to establish a National Defense, relying on that Militia. The Militia is not an individual, and is a public institution, regulated under both Federal and state constitutions and laws; thus the Amendment is irrelevant to the issue of private, individual gun ownership:
James Madison is called "the father of the Constitution," and the gun industry/NRA claims that Madison wrote the Second Amendment. If both of those are facts, then the word "people" is consistent in meaning from beginning of the Constitution to the end of the first 10 Amendments. The first three words of the Constitution are "We the people," not, "We the individual".
This is the first draft of that which became the Second Amendment, which the gun industry/NRA calls the "Madison" Amendment -- but which it never quotes. [Here I clarify it for the logic-impaired]:
"The right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear arms [this phrase is the well-regulated Militia, and was drawn from four state constitution Militia Clauses] shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in well-regulated Militia] in person."
Source: Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Paperback, 1991), Edited by Helen E Veit, et al., at 12. (This volume is readily available from Amazon.)
Note the word "compelled": Militia service was a DUTY -- not a "right". And note the words "people" and "person": if a person -- individual -- claimed "religious" exemption from that DUTY, his case was scrutinized individually.
The only "individual" "right" Congress debated was that last clause -- "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service" -- and it was obviously dropped from the proposed Amendment before it was ratified. Thus the Second Amendment obviously does not protect "individual" ANYTHING.
Only by ignoring the legislative history -- Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- could Scalia falsely hold that the Amendment protects an "individual" "right".
2. That the purpose of the Amendment was to establish a "right" to "take up arms" against the gov't -- which is refuted by the Constitution itself:
Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.
The Founders themselves twice established the precedent on the point:
Under the Articles of Confederation, "Shays's" rebellion was suppressed by the state's legitimate well-regulated Militia, and the rebels charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
And under the Constitution, AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, the "Whiskey" rebellion was suppressed by Federalized Militia, lead by George Washington, and the rebels charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
The Congress, as a co-equal branch of gov't, has the authority and power to overturn Supreme Court decisions.
Overturn "Heller".
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
1
-
@Anon54387 Ahistorical gibberish -- and you've obviously never read either the Constitution or the "Declaration of Independence," which latter has never been law, and applied EXCLUSIVELY to ENGLAND.
Moreover, the Founders "attacked" and "overthrew" ZERO gov'ts, because the gov'ts in question were all along under the control of the Founders.
All the rest of your gibberish is totally ignorant in that it REJECTS the very rule of law in which are secured the "rights" you claim. You can't have it both ways.
"Revolutionary" Sam Adams was a propagandist, and his goal was not "revolution" but the re-establishment of Puritan "virtue" -- and he never missed and opportunity to foment violence up to and including killing.
Last but not least, from the Constitution you've never bothered to READ:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions.
To "take up arms" againist the gov't is INSURRECTION; research what the Founders did to "Shays's" and "Whiskey" insurrections -- which latter was CRUSHED AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Anon54387 The British order pertaining to Lexington-Concord were (1) to seize cannon and powder -- which were under the control of the gov't, and (2) to not seize anything private.
You are dirt-ignorant of the actual history. This is how many gov'ts the Founders "attacked" and "overthrew":
ZERO.
Because all the gov'ts in question were all along under the control of the colonists.
The "Declaration of Independence," which you've NEVER READ, applied EXCLUSIVELY to ENGLAND -- the Founders were not declaring independence from themselves. We know that because the "grievances" in it are directed by name at King George III. These two of those grievances are directly on point:
"He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures."
ALL military forces, including well-REGULATED Militia, were kept strictly UNDER the RULE OF LAW. And the commander-in-chief, also established in law, was the state's GOVERNOR.
"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power."
The "Civil Power" is the gov't. OBVIOUSLY the Founders objected to ANY military force being OUTSIDE the rule of law, because they were opposed to MILITARY OVERTHROW of their gov'ts -- whether by standing army, or by armed gang engaged in INSURRECTION.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@casper3130 Gun control law has existed since the advent of guns. This is a familiar law -- note the date it was enacted:
___
AT A COUNCIL Held at Boston, March 28, 1678.
Whereas many Complaints have been made, that feveral Persons have been killed by such as have pretended to have fhot at Fowle, birds &c. and that in or near Highwayes; and many take the boldnefs upon them, Youths and grown Perfons, too frequently to fhoot within the Limits of Towns, Orchards, Gardens, &c. with bullets, greater or fmaller fhot, on pretence of fhooting at Marks, Birds, Fowle &c. whereby Perfons are endangered to be killed in their Gardens, Orchards, or adjacent Commons; To prevent fuch inconveniences and mifcheifs for the future,
It is hereby Declared and Ordered, That all or any Perfon or Perfons of what age or Condition foever, that fhall henceforth prefume to fhoot off any Gun or Guns, charged with Bullet or Bullets, Swan, Goofe, or other fhot towards any Mark or place that the Militia in fuch Town or Towns have not appointed; or fo near or into any Houfe, Barn, Garden, Orchards or Highwayes in any town or towns of this Jurifdiction, whereby any perfon or perfons fhall or may be killed, wounded, or otherwife damaged, fuch perfon or perfons fo offending fhall be proceeded againft either as Murtherers, of fuch as have wounded or damaged any perfon or perfons in fuch place or places, fhall be liable to anfwer it, and to make full fatiffaction in all refpects to fuch perfon or perfons both for cure and damage; and be alfo liable to fuch further punifhment as the Authority of the place that hath Cognizance of the offence fhall appoint : And where either they be Servants or Youths under their Parents or Mafters and fhall not be able to make fuch fatifaction, fuch Parents or mafters fhall be liable to make full and due fatifaction in all respects : And the Select men of each town are hereby appointed to fee that this be put in execut[ion.]
By the Council. Edward Rawson Secr'
____________
William Whitmore, "The Colonial Laws of Massachusetts-Bay. Reprinted from the Edition of 1672, with the Supplements Through 1686" (Boston: Rockwell and Churchill, City Printers, 1890), Edited by William H. Whitmore, at 349.
___
And as law evolves, I have numerous other subsequent and more extensive gun control laws extending to and through the 1700s and into the 1800s. ALL enacted by the Founders.
1
-
1
-
@billbillerton6122 This is gun control, and a familiar law. Not the date it was enacted:
___
AT A COUNCIL Held at Boston, March 28, 1678.
Whereas many Complaints have been made, that feveral Persons have been killed by such as have pretended to have fhot at Fowle, birds &c. and that in or near Highwayes; and many take the boldnefs upon them, Youths and grown Perfons, too frequently to fhoot within the Limits of Towns, Orchards, Gardens, &c. with bullets, greater or fmaller fhot, on pretence of fhooting at Marks, Birds, Fowle &c. whereby Perfons are endangered to be killed in their Gardens, Orchards, or adjacent Commons; To prevent fuch inconveniences and mifcheifs for the future,
It is hereby Declared and Ordered, That all or any Perfon or Perfons of what age or Condition foever, that fhall henceforth prefume to fhoot off any Gun or Guns, charged with Bullet or Bullets, Swan, Goofe, or other fhot towards any Mark or place that the Militia in fuch Town or Towns have not appointed; or fo near or into any Houfe, Barn, Garden, Orchards or Highwayes in any town or towns of this Jurifdiction, whereby any perfon or perfons fhall or may be killed, wounded, or otherwife damaged, fuch perfon or perfons fo offending fhall be proceeded againft either as Murtherers, of fuch as have wounded or damaged any perfon or perfons in fuch place or places, fhall be liable to anfwer it, and to make full fatiffaction in all refpects to fuch perfon or perfons both for cure and damage; and be alfo liable to fuch further punifhment as the Authority of the place that hath Cognizance of the offence fhall appoint : And where either they be Servants or Youths under their Parents or Mafters and fhall not be able to make fuch fatifaction, fuch Parents or mafters fhall be liable to make full and due fatifaction in all respects : And the Select men of each town are hereby appointed to fee that this be put in execut[ion.]
By the Council. Edward Rawson Secr'
____________
William Whitmore, "The Colonial Laws of Massachusetts-Bay. Reprinted from the Edition of 1672, with the Supplements Through 1686" (Boston: Rockwell and Churchill, City Printers, 1890), Edited by William H. Whitmore, at 349.
1
-
1
-
@IberianWolf-v3u 1. The entire Constitution is in effect at the same time -- not only the part/s you like.
2. ALSO in the Constitution are these clauses:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invsions."
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia . . . reserving to the States respective, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS."
3. The PURPOSE of the Second Amendment -- one LEARNS this by READING THE DEBATES of the first Congress that WROTE it -- was to establish a NATIONAL DEFENSE relying on the Militia, because they didn't trust STANDING ARMIES.
4. The SOURCES of the Second Amendment were four Militia Clauses from already-existing STATE constitutions.
5. The state Militia Clauses distinguished between "the right of the people," etc., -- which was the WELL-REGULATED MILITIA -- and standing armies, which, "in times of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up without the consent of the legislature".
And the final stipulation of those clauses was that the military power be governed by and subordinate to the CIVIL power -- CIVILIAN rule over the military.
6. And, no, I do not leave out the word "people" -- IN FACT, the several drafts of that which became the Second Amendment included BOTH "people" and "person" -- the difference between the two the LITERATE FOUNDERS understood. The FINAL clause of those drafts was the ONLY INDIVIDUAL right debated:
": but no PERSON [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in WELL-REGULATED MILITIA] shall not be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in WELL-REGULATED MILITIA] in person".
7. As for the word PEOPLE: James Madison is said to be the "Father of the Constitution," and gun-nuts love to insist that he wrote the Bill of Rights. If that is true, then the word "PEOPLE" means the same thing from the beginning of the Constitution to the end of the first ten Amendments. The first three words of the Constitution are:
"We the people"; NOT, "We the individual".
1
-
@Derpyderp597 You are totally ignorant of American history and law -- including the Constitution itself, ALL of which is in effect at the same time. First, the Founders "attacked" and "overthrew" this many gov'ts:
ZERO.
Because the gov'ts in question were controlled all along by the FOUNDERS.
Second, the Constitution is AGAINT your guzzled anti-American crackpottery:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions."
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for ORGANIZING, ARMING, AND DISCIPLINING, THE MILITIA . . . reserving to the States [GOV'T] respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS."
___
And this is an example of the Congress arming the states' Militia:
Chap. LXV.--An Act providing Arms for the Militia throughout the United States.
Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be provided, at the charge and expense of the government of the United States, thirty thousand stand of arms, which shall be deposited by order of the President of the United States, at suitable places, for the purpose of being sold to the governments of the respective States, or the militia thereof, under such regulations, and at such prices as the President of the United States shall prescribe.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby authorized to cause all or any part of the arms herein directed to be provided and deposited for sale, which shall, at any time, remain unsold, to be delivered to the militia, when called into the service of the United States, proper receipts and security being given for the return of the same.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the monies arising from such sales shall be paid into the treasury of the United States, and the amount received shall be annually reported to Congress.
Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That for the purpose of carrying this act into effect, the President of the United States shall be, and he is hereby authorized to draw from the treasury of the United States, a [577] sum not exceeding four hundred thousand dollars, to be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.
Approved, July 6, 1798.
___
The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, from the Organization of the Government in 1789, to March 3, 1845. Arranged in Chronological Order. With References to the Matter of Each Act and to the Subsequent Acts on the Same Subject, and Copious Notes of the Decisions of the Courts of the United States Construing Those Acts, and Upon the Subjects of the Laws. With an Index to the Contents of Each Volume, and a Full General Index to the Whole Work, in the Concluding Volume. Together with the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of the United States; and Also, Tables, in the Last Volume, Containing Lists of the Acts Relating to the Judiciary, Imposts and Tonnage, the Public Lands, Etc., Vol I. (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1850), By Authority of Congress, Edited by Richard Peters, at 576.
____________
Thus the Militia -- the National Guard -- is ALWAYS UNDER BOTH US and State constitutions and laws.
And see Presser v. Illinois which provides point-by-point rebuttal of your position AND was cited AFFIRMATIVELY in _Heller_.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PureTexan That was never true -- and, of course, you don't cite to any law supporting that fake manly-man law-illiterate fantasy. From the beginnings of the colonies in the 1600s the military -- the militia -- was UNDER the control of gov't AS STIPULATED IN THEIR WRITTEN LAWS.
But let's look at the Constitution, because that is what applies -- not the "Liberal" Hollowood fantasies you swallow -- as the supreme Law of the Land:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions."
The Founders charged insurrectionists with TREASON, tried and convicted them of TREASON, and sentenced them to death. See "Shays's" and "Whiskey" insurrections.
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia . . . reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers [the governor nominates; the legislature says yes or no], and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS."
The entire Constitution is in effect at the same time; and as the Founders were opposed to insurrection, they were opposed to ANY armed force -- whether standing army or armed anti-American gang falsely claiming to be "patriots" -- attacking the gov't. Gov't is by definition RULE OF LAW.
1
-
@samizdat113 None of that is true or coherent. The DEBATES of the WRITING of the Amendment by the first Congress is incontrovertible substantiation that the purpose of the Amendment was to establish a NATIONAL DEFENSE relying on the well-regulated Militia because standing armies were distrusted. WELL-REGULATED meant then and means now UNDER LAW -- not armed gangs outside the law attacking the rule of law.
The Founders "attacked" and "overthrew ZERO gov'ts because the gov'ts in question were all along UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE FOUNDERS.
Repeating ahistorical- and law-illiterate pseudo-law fantasies you got at fifteenth hand on the Internet will not make those ahistorical- and law-illiterate pseudo-law fantasies true.
READ the ACTUAL LAW --
___
Refuting the NRA's Two Second Amendment Lies
The gun industry political front NRA tells two lies about the intent of the Second Amendment.
1. That the Second Amendment protects an "individual" "right" to possess guns.
Comparison with the several prior Supreme Court decisions, and the legislative history -- the Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- shows that Scalia's Heller decision is an outlier. In Heller he falsely held that the Amendment protects an individual right -- for which he was excoriated by legal experts across the political spectrum for ignoring this adjudicatory standard:
When a conflict over the interpretation of a law cannot be resolved within the text of the law, one reverts to the legislative history of the law -- in this instance Congress's Debates of the writing of the Amendment.
The facts from those Debates:
The purpose of the Amendment was to establish a National Defense, relying on the well-regulated Militia. That fact is underscored by the Militia Act enacted on May 8, 1792:
"An act more effectually to provide for the NATIONAL DEFENCE by establishing an uniform MILITIA throughout the United States."
The Militia is not an individual; it is a public institution, an arm OF gov't, regulated under both Federal and state constitutions and laws. The Amendment is irrelevant to the issue of private, individual gun ownership:
James Madison is called "the father of the Constitution," and the gun industry/NRA claims that Madison wrote the Second Amendment. If both of those are facts, then the word "people" is consistent in meaning from the beginning of the Constitution to the end of the first 10 Amendments. The first three words of the Constitution are "We the people," not, "We the individual".
This is the first draft of that which became the Second Amendment, which the gun industry/NRA calls the "Madison" Amendment -- but which it never quotes. [Here I clarify it for the logic-impaired]:
"The right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear arms [this phrase is the well-regulated Militia, and was drawn from four state constitution Militia Clauses] shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in well-regulated Militia] in person."
Source: Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Paperback, 1991), Edited by Helen E Veit, et al., at 12. (This volume is readily available from Amazon.)
Note the word "compelled": Militia service was a DUTY -- not a "right". And note the words "people" and "person": if a person -- individual -- claimed "religious" exemption from that DUTY, his case was scrutinized individually.
The only "individual" "right" debated was that last clause -- "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service" -- and it was obviously voted down before the proposed Amendment was ratified. Thus the Second Amendment obviously does not protect "individual" ANYTHING.
Only by ignoring the legislative history -- Congress's Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- could Scalia falsely hold that the Amendment protects an "individual" "right".
2. That the purpose of the Amendment was to establish a "right" to "take up arms" against the gov't -- which is refuted by the Constitution itself:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS".
The Founders themselves twice established the precedent on the point:
Under the Articles of Confederation, "Shays's" insurrection was suppressed by the state's well-regulated Militia, and the insurrectionists charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
Under the Constitution, more than two years AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, the "Whiskey" insurrection was suppressed by Federalized Militia, lead by George Washington, and the insurrectionists charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
The Congress, as a co-equal branch of gov't, has the authority and power to overturn Supreme Court decisions.
Overturn Heller and its progeny.
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
1
-
@TheWorldsprayer FALSE, law-illiterate anti-American. Here's are the first clues, from the Constitution itself, which is LAW, ALL of which is in effect ALWAYS, and which you CLAIM to be for but in fact REJECT:
"Art. I., S. 8., S. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions."
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining the Militia . . . reserving to the States [GOV'TS] respectively, the Appointment of the Officers [by the State's governor/ commander-in-chief and legislature] and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS."
AND:
"Art. 2., S. 1. The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the . . . Militia of the several States".
The President is also the chief Federal law enforcement officer.
AND:
"Art. VI., S. 2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof [by CONGRESS] . . . under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
This is how it works -- basic law 101:
1. Constitutional provisions are implemented by means of STATUTES. STATUTES REGULATE, in this context "Militia Acts".
2. Statutes REGULATE.
3. Your baldfaced, unsubstantiated assertion has nothing to back it up but law-illiteracy and MOUTH. I have an education in law, and have been immersed in these issues for more than 30 years.
LEARN from my NEXT comment, in which I SUBSTANTIATE the ACTUAL law on the matter, and which is consistent from 1658 through to the present:
the gov't -- which is by definition RULE OF LAW -- has ALWAYS governed and regulated EVERY form of Military, EVEN WHEN THERE WAS ONLY MILITIA.
1
-
1
-
So you are insisting that the first three words of the Constitution are, "We the individual"?
In the first and subsequent drafts of the Second Amendment Madison and the Congress -- both House and Senate -- distinguished between "people" and "person because, most being LAWYERS, they knew the difference between "collective" and individual. One even finds IN LAW as a frequent use the words "person" and "persons". Those are individualisms.
"A well regulated Militia" is the subject of the Amendment because, as the Amendment says, "NECESSARY". "The right of the people," etc., phrase, was drawn from four STATE constitution Militia Clauses, and it is the WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. Those same Clauses distinguish between well-regulated Militia -- "the right of the people," etc. -- and standing armies.
What you law-illiterates don't know is the actual history -- especially the laws at the time; and that constitutional provisions are implemented by means of STATUTES. In those Militia Acts one finds the details NOT in the general Amendment. Yes: Constitutions are deliberately general in order to accommodate the unforeseen; statutes are more specific and detailed.
The ONLY "individual right" in the preliminary drafts was this:
": but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY, as in DRAFT] to render military service [in well-regulated Militia]".
That being OBVIOUSLY voted down, there is no "individual right" in the Second Amendment.
And just for the fun of it, let's look at everything to do with "militia" in this state constitution, and two subsequent statutes from the same state --
___
Note specifically the dates of the following.
The first are the Militia Clauses from the Virginia constitution which was adopted on June 12, 1776:
___
"Virginia Bill of Rights--1776
. . . .
"Sec. I3. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
Note these words:
"defence of a free State". "State is gov't, and gov't is by definition rule of law.
To continue:
"Constitution of Virginia--1776
. . . .
"The present militia officers shall be continued, and vacancies supplied by appointment of the Governor, with the advice of the Privy-Council, on recommendations from the respective County Courts; but the Governor and Council shall have a power of suspending any officer, and ordering a Court Martial, on complaint of misbehavior or inability, or to supply vacancies of officers, happening when in actual service.
"The Governor may embody the militia, with the advice of the Privy-Council; and when embodied, shall alone have the direction of the militia, under the laws of the country."
See that? -- the State's Governor is the commander-in-chief of the Militia. There is no other "militia" that is legal, because the purpose of the militia is defense of gov't, AS AN ARM OF gov't.
___
The following statute establishes what were and are also called "armories" for the storage of public arms, etc., with which the well-regulated Militia are to be armed (rendered in current English):
At a General Assembly begun and held at the Public Buildings in the Town of Richmond, on Monday the Ist day of May, in the Year of the Lord 1780.
Chap. XXIX.
An act to enable the Governor to provide a laboratory and proper magazines for the reception of arms, ammunition, and other public stores.
1. Whereas it is expedient that proper magazines for the reception of arms, ammunition, and other public stores, and a laboratory be speedily provided, Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that the Governor with the advice of his Council may, and he is hereby empowered and required to cause such and so many magazines as shall be judged necessary, and a laboratory to immediately be erected at the public expence, at such place or places as they shall think proper; and that reasonable satisfaction may be made to the proprietors of all lands which by virtue of this act may be taken and appropriated to the uses aforesaid, the clerk of the county wherein any such land shall lie, is hereby empowered and required, on requisition from the Governor for the time being, to issue a writ ad quod dammon, to be directed to the sheriff of the said county, commanding him to summon and empannel twelve able discreet freeholders of the vicinage, no ways concerned in interest in the said lands, nor related to the owners or proprietors thereof, to meet on the said lands respectively on a certain day to gbe mentioned in the said writ, not under five, nor more than ten days from the date thereof, of which notice shall be given to the respectie proprietors of the said lands, if they be to to be found within the county, and if not, then to their respective agents if any there be; which freeholders take nothing on pain of being discharged from the inquest and immediately imprisoned by the sheriff, either of meat or drink from any person whatever, from the time they came to the said place until their inquest sealed, shall be charged by the said sheriff impartially, and to the best of their skill and judgment to value the lands on which the said magazines and laboratory are to be erected, to be laid off by order of the Governor, and not exceeding three acres for each of said buildings; and after such valuation made, the said sheriff shall forthwith return the same under the hands and seals of the said jurors, to the clerk's office of the said county; and the right and property of the said lands so laid off and valued, shall be immediately devested and be transferred to this commonwealth in fee simple; any want of consent or disabilty to consent in the said owners notwithstanding. The cost of building such magazines and laboratory, the cost of the said inquest, and the several sums at which the rights of the owners are valued, shall be paid by the Treasurer, out of the public money in his hands, to the undertakers of the said magazines and laboratory, to the said proprietors and others respectively entitled, on warrants from the Auditors, countersigned by the Governor.
A Collection of All Such Public Acts of the General Assembly, and Ordinances of the Conventions of Virginia, Passed since the year 1768, as are now in force; With a Table of the Principal Matters (Richmond: Thomas Nicolson and William Prentis, 1785); The First Laws of the State of Virginia (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, Inc., "The First Laws of the Original Thirteen States," 1982), Compiled by John D. Cushing, at 129-130.
___
The following statute orders the recovery of public arms from the well-regulated militia:
At a General Assembly begun and held at the Public Buildings in the City of Richmond, on Monday the 21st day of October, in the Year of our Lord 1782.
Chap. XII.
An act for the recovery of arms and accoutrements belonging to the state.
I. Whereas sundry arms and accoutrements belonging to the public in the hands of individuals, who have neglected to return them to the proper officers; and it is necessary that such arms and accoutrements should be recovered as speedily as possible: Be it enacted, that the Governor do, on the passing of this act, issue his proclamation, enjoining all persons having in their possession any arms or accoutrements whatsoever, belonging to the state, to deliver them without delay to the Lieutenant or commanding officer of the county for the time being; and the sheriff of each county within this commonwealth, shall cause copies of the said proclamations, which shall be transmitted to him by the Executive, to be fixed up in the most public places in his county, and if after one month from such public notice having been given, any person possessing any such public arms or accoutrements, shall be convicted of having failed to deliver them up as aforesaid, such person shall, upon every such conviction, be liable to the penalty of twenty pounds, to be recovered by action of debt, bill, plaint, or information, in any court of record within this commonwealth, one half of which penalty shall go to the informer, on conviction of the offender, and the other half shall be applied in aid of the county levy where such offender shall reside. And the Lieutenant, or commanding officer of each county, shall make returns from time to time, to the Executive, of all arms and accoutrements so delivered to him, and also deliver them to the order of the Executive, under the penalty, if he fail in all or any part of his duty, of fifty pounds, to be recovered as aforesaid, and applied in diminution of the county levy. Provided always, that where muskets and bayonets have been by order of government placed in any county on eastern or western frontier for defence against incursions of the enemy, it shall be lawful for the Lieutenant or commanding officer to return such muskets and bayonets to the militia, taking a receipt from each person for what shall be so returned.
A Collection of All Such Public Acts of the General Assembly, etc., at 176.
You and your ilk show how easy it is to be enthusiastically wrong.
1
-
@jacobew2000 Law-illiterate: I have an education in law, and I've been researching these issues for more than 30 years. The experts governing the Militia came directly from the -- READ THE DATE -- 1776 Virginia constitution. Jefferson CERTAINLY had input to it. And I provided the source of the two statutes. IF you knew how to read you'd understand that.
And it's obvious you don't know how to READ that which is directly in front of your face. Quoting from your comment with EMPHASIS of that you overlook:
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are PEACEABLE citizens from keeping their own arms."
And you illiteracy in law is glaring: gadfly Jefferson no part in framing the US Constitution, and no part in writing the Bill of Rights. And LETTERS are NOT LAW.
Neither, dunce, is The Federalist law. There were more than 50 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. The tiny minority of THREE wrote extra-Congressional newspaper articles under fake names; they were "Federalists" who were admittedly engaged in an ADVERTISING campaign -- propaganda -- designed to SELL the Constitution. And you've not READ it; in "The Federalist No. 84" is this:
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous." The Federalist (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, Paperback, 1961), Edited, with Introduction and Notes, by Jacob E. Cooke, at 579.
That is the definitive edition of The Federalist -- it includes the original articles, which were edited and in some places rewritten in the first edition, of which all other editions are copies.
Again, the Federalist is NOT LAW. And, on the other end of the spectrum was an equal number -- THREE -- who refused to sign the Constitution. One of those was Massachusetts-Bay Congressman Elbridge Gerry, who invented gerrymandering, which was a huge scandal.
And the US Constitution, which IS law, and ALL of which is in effect at the same time, and which is the SUPREME Law of the Land, is against you:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS [which makes the laws] shall have Power To provide for [by making laws] calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions.
To "take up arms" against gov't is INSURRECTION -- which the Founders charged, prosecuted, and convicted as TREASON, and sentenced the insurrectionists to DEATH. See "Shays's" and "Whiskey" insurrections, the latter having been suppressed AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, by well-regulated Militia.
Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia . . . reserving to the States [GOV'TS] respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS."
Art. IV., S., 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion [and] domestic Violence."
First Amendment: Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people [NOT "individual"] PEACEABLY to assemble."
Last but not least, from the "Declaration of Independence," which you can't be bothered to actually READ, and more than you care to READ the Constitution your ilk so frequently invoke, else you'd learn that it too is against you, as detailed in the grievances against King George III, these two being directly on point:
"He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures."
The LEGISLATURES MAKE LAWS REGULATING MILITIA -- reread the excerpts from the 1776 Virginia constitution -- and determines WHETHER to establish a standing army when the Militia isn't sufficient to address violence directed at the gov't.
"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power."
The "Civil Power" is the gov't, which is by definition RULE OF LAW.
Read YOUR state constitution -- it without doubt has one or more Militia Clauses. From it you'll learn that your state's GOVERNOR is the commander-in-chief of the state Militia -- now National Guard.
In sum: there is no individual right in the Second Amendment, as I already made clear. And there is no right to "take up arms" against the gov't -- which, again, is insurrection, and which, again, the Founders classified as TREASON, with DEATH the penalty.
1
-
1
-
@jacobew2000 Actually not. All the colonies were administered from London -- except for Massachusetts-Bay, which somehow managed to bring the management, in their written Charter, to the colony, and that was its gov't.
The colonies had to deal with exigencies that didn't exist in England -- indigenous peoples, as example; so the colonies enacted laws "foreign" to England. Pursuant to Crown Review, laws enacted in Massachusetts-Bay, their "Body of Liberties" of 1641, as example, were often struck down, and not to be enforced. Massachusetts-Bay responded, "Oh, okay" -- then went ahead and enforced them anyway. Their first Charted was eventually revoked. Governor Sewell took a trip to England to negotiate a new Charter (the "William & Mary" Charter). When he arrived back at the colony with the Charter under his arm he found himself in the middle of the Salem Witch hysteria.
The reality is that over time the colonies' laws and systems deviated from English law; they were effectively "independent" before they realized it. And there is this fact:
"The first question that confronts the investigator [of the legal history] concerns the influence upon our system of the English common law [court decisions; "judge-made law"; not statutory law], that complex body of principles and rules, contained, t the early colonial period, in the Year Books, Reports, and the standard law treatises of quasi-judicial authority. Statutory law-making had been but sparingly used up to this time in England, and the law of property and personal security, criminal law, and procedure, found their norms in a long series of judicial precedents. The transfer of this system to the colonies, its amalgamation with new forms there originated, its adaptation to novel conditions, constitutes a subject of rare interest.
There is an hierarchy of law: Constitutions -- mandatory law; constitutional provisions are implemented by means of statutes -- mandatory law; court opinions/"judge-made law" -- persuasive authority. My state can be persuaded by court opinions from, as example, your state. Or my state an ignore those same opinions.
"The accepted legal theory of this transfer is well known. It is clearly stated by [Joseph] Story in Van Ness v. Packard, 2 Peters, 144: 'The common law [i.e., court decisions/"judge-made law"] of England is not to be taken in all respects to be that of America. Our ancestors brought with them its general principles, and claimed it as their birth-right; but they brought with them and adopted only that portion which was applicable to their condition.' This theory is universally adopted by our courts, and it has given them the important power of judging of the applicability of the principles of the common law to American conditions. According to this view, the common law was from the first looked upon by the colonists as a system of positive and subsidiary law, applying where not replaced by colonial enactments [these being statutes] or by special custom suited to new conditions.
And Massachusetts-Bay colony, known as "The BIBLE Commonwealth" based its laws, first, on the "Bible". Its Capital Laws were drawn directly from Deuteronomy and Leviticus.
"While this legal theory [as Story put it] is adopted as an eminently satisfactory explanation of the jurisprudence of today, it is not complete enough to afford an adequate synthesis of colonial legal facts for the historian. It contains, of course, the great legal truth that men cannot all at once cut themselves loose from a system of thought or action under which they have lived . . . . Thus, of course, the more simple, popular, general parts of the English common law were from the first of great influence on colonial legal relations. This, however, is very far from declaring the common law of England a subsidiary system in actual force from the beginning of colonization. On the contrary, we find from the very first, originality in legal conceptions, departing widely from the most settled theories of the common law, and even a total denial of the subsidiary character of English jurisprudence. . . . English Common Law in the Early American Colonies (Madison, WI: October, 1899/NY: Gordon Press, 1977), Paul Samuel Reinsch, at 6-7.
Continued.
1
-
@jacobew2000 Continuing:
"According to the accepted legal theory, the American colonists claimed the English common law as their birthright, brought with them its general principles and adopted so much of it as was applicable to their condition. Although this theory is universally adopted by the courts, a close study of the subject reveals among the early colonists a far different attitude toward the common law from that which is usually attributed to them. In none of the colonies, perhaps, was this more marked than in Massachusetts. Here the binding force of English law was denied, and a legal system largely different came into use. . . ." Legal Development in Colonial Massachusetts 1630-1686 (NY: Columbia University; Longmans, Green & Co., Agents, 1910Clark, NJ: The Lawbook exchange, 2005), Charles J. Hilkey, at 5.
The first stable colony was Plymouth Colony, founded by the Pilgrims in 1620. But it was a poor relation to Massachusetts-Bay, founded in 1629, which became an economic powerhouse that eventually absorbed Plymouth Colony.
The laws of Massachusetts-Bay permeated the colonies a far as at least the middle colonies. And it lead the so-called "revolution" while the Southern colonies were bashing the "rebels" in Massachusetts as "traitors," defending slavery, and extending "olive branches" to King George III. Lexington & Concord and Bunker Hill had occurred and the South was still avoiding the reality: the original colonists essentially rejected England and its laws as those laws had "persecuted" them. They planted the seeds in all the particulars except in their conscious awareness; until the 1770s.
The United States stopped being under English law almost from the beginning. With the "Declaration" they made it objective fact. Ask yourself: in a conflict of laws situation between English and US law, which law would prevail in the United States?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jacobew2000 This is a Militia Act, at random. It is of interest because it refutes the hogwash that the Militia was composed of males who came and went on their own whims. You know, all that "freedom" and "liberty" stuff without any regulation or limitations. Without any penalties for refusing to comply with the rule of law
More specifically, it refutes the "voluntary" nature of the Militia as being a gang of armed gun-nuts who gather together and build their paunches by drinking beer while bullshitting about "freedom" and "liberty" and how the Founders were as armed as the cowboys in LIBERAL Hollowood movie fictions, in which there were no laws, and especially no laws regulating gun possession -- all based on FICTIONS promulgated by dime novelists who'd never been east of the publishing center of the United States located in New York City.
___
Here's the statute (rendered in contemporary English; e.g., "long s" changed to modern "s"):
___
At a GENERAL COURT Held at Boston the 3d of May, 1676.
This COURT taking into Consideration the great Disappointment the Country hath suffered by reason of non-appearance of Soldiers Impressed [DRAFTED] for several expeditions: Do judge meet that every person Impressed as a Souldier for the Service of the Country, and neglecting to make his appearance according to Order: every such Foot Souldier shall pay the sum of four Pounds, and every Trooper shall pay the sum of six Pounds: and if their neglects or refusal be accompanied with Refractoriness, Reflection or Contempt upon Authority, such person shall be punished with Death, or some other Grievous punishment.
And the Committee of Militia in the several Towns where the offence is committed are hereby impowered and required to call before them all such as shall be Delinquents as is above expressed, and on Conviction of their neglect to give Warrent to the Constable to levy the said fines, which said fines shall be improved to purchase Arms for the Towns use; Provided it shall be in the power of the Council upon Petition of any person agrieved, and just reason alledged and proved to make abatement of the said fines as in their wisdom and discretion they shall judge meet. And it is hereby Ordered that the return of all neglects and defects in the cases aforesaid, be sent to the Committee of Militia in the several Towns, who are hereby required to take care for the strict Execution hereof.
By the COURT Edward Rawson Secr.
The Colonial Laws of Massachusetts. Reprinted from the Edition of 1672, With the Supplements Through 1686. (Boston, MA: Rockwell and Churchill, City Printers, 1890), Edited by William H. Whitmore, at 343.
___
If one goes to one's state law library, or a good law school library (look for a Federal Depository library, which by law are accessible to the public), and asks a librarian for help finding Militia Acts, and one sits down with any one or more of the relevant volumes of statutes, one will be overwhelmed with the sheer number of Militia Acts that have been enacted.
1
-
1
-
The SUBJECT of the Amendment is "well regulated Militia," because "NECESSARY.
There were two ways to serve in the Militia -- which was a DUTY:
1. Enlist -- "the "volunteer Militia," exactly as today's military is "voluntary".
2. If sufficient warm bodies didn't enlist, then a DRAFT was implemented.
The very next thing the person enlisting or drafted was REQUIRED to do was to SWEAR THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE -- to support and defend the Constitution and laws.
SWEARING that oath is NOT the equivalent of an education in law. Nor is it license to take one's law-illiterate notion of "law" into one's own hands.
READ your STATE constitution -- which is LAW that REGULATES -- for the specifics in the law governing and regulating your state's Militia. THOSE provisions were and are implemented by means of STATUTES. When you search your state's STATUTES for Militia Acts you'll find that they have been numerous and frequent.
Start with the earliest law you can find, whether colony or state, and pursue that research chronologically.
READ the Acts -- keeping in mind that the ENTIRE law applies, not only out-of-context snippets you LIKE. As example, from time to time, law-illiterate gun-nuts will assert that the "officers" of the Militia are elected by the troops. They like the idea of predetermined election results by "electing" equally law-illiterate gun-nuts from among themselves.
What they OMIT, because they are self-bullshitted law-illiterates -- amid their frequent and tiresome invocations of "CONSTITUTION!" THEY HAVE NEVER READ -- is the state CONSTITUTION provisions regarding such as Militia officers; IF the troops elect their immediate officers, the TOP officers are typically nominated by the state's GOVERNOR, and approved, or not, by the state's legislature.
We see it all the time; some gun-nut nitwit will post "something" allegedly from a court decision, without source, and entirely divorced from SUPERIOR legal context; or a snippet of a maybe-statute -- no source given -- divorced from ITS context.
The problem for and with stupid people is that they tend to not know they are stupid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@prodbysaucy30 "The 2nd amendment is not to be interpreted as anything other that what it was intended to protect."
And we're to believe the SELF-SERVING "interpretation" by law-illiterates such as you -- EVEN WHEN THE CONSTITUTION YOU CLAIM TO BE PROTECTING REFUTES YOUR INTERPRETATION?
Pay attention to these dates, clown:
June 21, 1788: Ratification of Constitution completed.
The Constitution includes four Militia Clauses --
"Art. I. S. 8. C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] to Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions."
To "take up arms" against the gov't -- which is RULE OF LAW -- is INSURRECTION.
The second Militia Clause begins:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia."
The Militia is UNDER the rule of law NOT IN SPITE OF IT.
September 25, 1789: PROPOSED Bill of Rights, consisting of TWELVE PROPOSED amendments, submitted to states for consideration and ratification.
December 15, 1791: Ratification of Bill of Rights completed. The FIRST TWO of the PROPOSED amendments were REJECTED, making the Third the First, and making the Fourth the Second.
Congress subsequently enacted these two statutes -- which REGULATE the Militia:
May 2, 1792: "An Act to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions."
May 8, 1792: "An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States."
More than two years AFTER the Bill of Rights/Second Amendment was ratified the Congress enacted this statute:
November 29, 1794: "An Act to authorize the President to call out and station a corps of Militia, in the four western Counties of Pennsylvania, for a limited time."
Those Militia, lead by George Washington, SUPPRESSED the "Whiskey" insurrection, and the insurrectionists were charged with TREASON, prosecuted, and convicted, and SENTENCED TO DEATH.
Also REFUTING your "interpretation" is the "Declaration of Independence," which you've ALSO never bothered to READ, and which includes a list of GRIEVANCES, these two of which are directly on point:
"He [i.e., King George III] has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures."
"He [i.e., King George III] has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power."
1
-
1
-
@swa_peeters Are you suggesting that the AUTHORS of the Amendment got it wrong?
That they didn't know their original intent?
Or are you unaware of the fact that the further away from the actual intent one gets the easier it is to LIE about the intent?
The ENTIRE Constitution is in effect at ALL TIMES -- and it REFUTES the right-wing anti-American extremists' LIE against the Constitution.
___
Refuting the NRA's Two Second Amendment Lies
The gun industry political front NRA tells two lies about the intent of the Second Amendment.
1. That the Second Amendment protects an "individual" "right" to possess guns.
Comparison with the several prior Supreme Court decisions, and the legislative history -- the Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- shows that Scalia's Heller decision is an outlier. In Heller he falsely held that the Amendment protects an individual right -- for which he was excoriated by legal experts across the political spectrum for ignoring this adjudicatory standard:
When a conflict over the interpretation of a law cannot be resolved within the text of the law, one reverts to the legislative history of the law -- in this instance Congress's Debates of the writing of the Amendment.
The facts from those Debates:
The purpose of the Amendment was to establish a National Defense, relying on the well-regulated Militia. That fact is underscored by the Militia Act enacted on May 8, 1792:
"An act more effectually to provide for the NATIONAL DEFENCE by establishing an uniform MILITIA throughout the United States."
The Militia is not an individual; it is a public institution, an arm OF gov't, regulated under both Federal and state constitutions and laws. The Amendment is irrelevant to the issue of private, individual gun ownership:
James Madison is called "the father of the Constitution," and the gun industry/NRA claims that Madison wrote the Second Amendment. If both of those are facts, then the word "people" is consistent in meaning from the beginning of the Constitution to the end of the first 10 Amendments. The first three words of the Constitution are "We the people," not, "We the individual".
This is the first draft of that which became the Second Amendment, which the gun industry/NRA calls the "Madison" Amendment -- but which it never quotes. [Here I clarify it for the logic-impaired]:
"The right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear arms [this phrase is the well-regulated Militia, and was drawn from four state constitution Militia Clauses] shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in well-regulated Militia] in person."
Source: Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Paperback, 1991), Edited by Helen E Veit, et al., at 12. (This volume is readily available from Amazon.)
Note the word "compelled": Militia service was a DUTY -- not a "right". And note the words "people" and "person": if a person -- individual -- claimed "religious" exemption from that DUTY, his case was scrutinized individually.
The only "individual" "right" debated was that last clause -- "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service" -- and it was obviously voted down before the proposed Amendment was ratified. Thus the Second Amendment obviously does not protect "individual" ANYTHING.
Only by ignoring the legislative history -- Congress's Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- could Scalia falsely hold that the Amendment protects an "individual" "right".
2. That the purpose of the Amendment was to establish a "right" to "take up arms" against the gov't -- which is refuted by the Constitution itself:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS".
The Founders themselves twice established the precedent on the point:
Under the Articles of Confederation, "Shays's" insurrection was suppressed by the state's well-regulated Militia, and the insurrectionists charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
Under the Constitution, AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, the "Whiskey" insurrection was suppressed by Federalized Militia, lead by George Washington, and the insurrectionists charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
The Congress, as a co-equal branch of gov't, has the authority and power to overturn Supreme Court decisions.
Overturn Heller and its progeny.
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
1
-
@DeRocco21 Yes, the Second Amendment is law. No one said otherwise.
But the LIES about its intent from the gun industry through it's political front NRA are LIES:
___
The NRA's Two Second Amendment Lies
The gun industry political front NRA tells two lies about the intent of the Second Amendment.
1. That the Second Amendment protects an "individual" "right" to possess guns.
Comparison with the several prior Supreme Court decisions, and the legislative history -- the Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- shows that Scalia's "Heller" decision is an outlier. In "Heller" he falsely held that the Amendment protects an individual right -- for which he was excoriated by legal experts across the political spectrum for ignoring this adjudicatory standard:
When a conflict over the interpretation of a law cannot be resolved within the text of the law, one reverts to the legislative history of the law -- in this instance Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment.
The facts from those Debates:
The subject of the Amendment is well regulated Militia, and its purpose to establish a National Defense, relying on that Militia. The Militia is not an individual, and is a public institution, regulated under both Federal and state constitutions and laws; thus the Amendment is irrelevant to the issue of private, individual gun ownership:
James Madison is called "the father of the Constitution," and the gun industry/NRA claims that Madison wrote the Second Amendment. If both of those are facts, then the word "people" is consistent in meaning from beginning of the Constitution to the end of the first 10 Amendments. The first three words of the Constitution are "We the people," not, "We the individual".
This is the first draft of that which became the Second Amendment, which the gun industry/NRA calls the "Madison" Amendment -- but which it never quotes. [Here I clarify it for the logic-impaired]:
"The right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear arms [this phrase is the well-regulated Militia, and was drawn from four state constitution Militia Clauses] shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in well-regulated Militia] in person."
Source: Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Paperback, 1991), Edited by Helen E Veit, et al., at 12. (This volume is readily available from Amazon.)
Note the word "compelled": Militia service was a DUTY -- not a "right". And note the words "people" and "person": if a person -- individual -- claimed "religious" exemption from that DUTY, his case was scrutinized individually.
The only "individual" "right" Congress debated was that last clause -- "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service" -- and it was obviously dropped from the proposed Amendment before it was ratified. Thus the Second Amendment obviously does not protect "individual" ANYTHING.
Only by ignoring the legislative history -- Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- could Scalia falsely hold that the Amendment protects an "individual" "right".
2. That the purpose of the Amendment was to establish a "right" to "take up arms" against the gov't -- which is refuted by the Constitution itself:
Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.
The Founders themselves twice established the precedent on the point:
Under the Articles of Confederation, "Shays's" rebellion was suppressed by the state's legitimate well-regulated Militia, and the rebels charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
And under the Constitution, AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, the "Whiskey" rebellion was suppressed by Federalized Militia, lead by George Washington, and the rebels charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
The Congress, as a co-equal branch of gov't, has the authority and power to overturn Supreme Court decisions.
Overturn "Heller".
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@olympicfireball "you are ignoring the right of the people part of the second amendment".
I absolutely am not ignoring it. I've REPEATEDLY made clear that that was adopted from the FOUR STATE Militia Clauses that used that phrase as the WELL-REGULATED MILITIA.
Your problem -- which you don't recognize -- is that you don't know what you're talking about,, but I do. And you don't want to accept the fact that those state constitution MILITIA Clauses distinguished between the MILITIA -- "the right of the people," etc, and standing armies, and that that phrase in the Second Amendment was adopted to establish continuity in the law, and is a REDUNDANCY for the SUBJECT of the Amendment: well-regulated Militia.
That is why simply reading a constitution -- and especially a phrase ripped out of its controlling and limiting context -- isn't sufficient. Read the STATUTES that existed before, during, and after the adopting of any constitution and you'll find that the constitution is essentially a codification of EXISTING law.
The "Declaration of Independence" -- which has never been law, and which applied EXCLUSIVELY to ENGLAND -- includes a list of grievances against, by name, King George III. These two are directly on point as illustrative of the Founders position:
"He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislature."
That was adopted into the state constitution Militia Clauses, when distinguishing between well-regulated Militia -- "the right of the people," etc. -- and standing armies. The most elegant instance, and one of the four Militia Clauses that were the sources of the Second Amendment, is that from Massachusetts' constitution (written by John Adams, the foremost constitutionalist among the Founders), and ratified in 1780. There is an account from years before, during the so-called "revolution," of Sam Adams giving a speech at Fauniel Hall in Boston. Arrayed across the front edge of the stage were guns. After the speech the guns were gathered up and returned to the PUBLIC STORES -- they were not "private guns" possessed by "the right of the people":
"XVII. The people have a right to keep and bear arms [well-regulated Militia provided PUBLIC arms as needed and necessary] for the common defence. And as, in times of peace, [standing] armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power [including well-regulated Militia] shall always be held in an exact subordination to the Civil authority, and be governed by it."
The second on-point grievance in the "Declaration":
He [i.e. King George III] has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power."
Thus there is no legitimate "military" "independent of and superior to" the military UNDER the Constitution and laws.
___
No law protects private fake "militia":
See _District of Columbia v. Heller_, 554 U.S. 570, 621 (2008), citing _Pressor v. Illinois_, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), both of which are available via "Google" search:
The Second Amendment "does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations".
In fact, all 50 states classify such fake "militia" as paramilitary organizations and PROHIBIT them.
Pick your state:
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/our-work/addressing-the-rise-of-unlawful-private-paramilitaries/state-fact-sheets/
1
-
1
-
@bl4ze1t38 "The implied right of privacy is not the main concern in roe v Wade, it’s the fact that it directly results in the death of children, and murder is not protected in the constitution whatsoever."
Nope. But it's obvious YOU are opposed to abortion as "murder" because you know ZERO about pregnancy. What of problem pregnancies -- they do occur, despite your wholly idealized and unreal fantasies about it. Research "ectopic pregnancy". But you won't do that because you couldn't care less for facts. Miscarriage, still-birth -- you know noting about problem pregnancies, and don't care to know: as far as you're concerned there are no problem pregnancies; there is only "abortion" and non-abortion.
That isn't what the 6 "Federalist Society" religioEXTREMISTS on the Court say. They assert that the words "right of privacy" don't appear in the Constitution, therefore there is no such right.
That's why those who actually understand law and how courts adjudicate, and "judicial philosophies," etc., operate, and thus point to the fact that erasing the right of privacy underpinning "Roe" also erases the foundations of other SC decisions, including "Griswold," which preceded "Roe" in being based on the right of privacy.
"Griswold," in the likelihood you don't know, established the right to use contraception. The 6 religioFREAKS on the Court ALSO oppose contraception. This is what overturning both "Griswold: and "Roe" would do for MEN:
State-enforced CHILD SUPPORT.
Are you for that? Or are you an "INCEL"?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnmullholand2044 These are in the Constitution you've never read:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions."
Congress provides implementation of Constitutional provides in the form of STATUTES, in this context, "Militia Acts," such as that enacted on May 2, 1792:
"An act to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions."
This is also in the Constitution:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia . . . reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed BBY CONGRESS."
Thus the Militia is ALWAYS UNDER BOTH US and state constitutions and STATUTES -- "Militia Acts".
And as the DEBATES of the WRITING of the Second Amendment abundantly shows the purpose of the Amendment was to establish a NATIONAL DEFENSE relying on the Militia. This is underscored by a second "Militia Act" enacted on May 8, 1792:
"An act more effectually to provide for the NATIONAL DEFENSE by establishing an uniform MILITIA throughout the United States.
As ever, you post irrelevant and false, and unsourced, garbage. And I SUBSTANTIATE with ACTUAL LAW.
Last but not least:
___
No law protects private fake "militia":
See _District of Columbia v. Heller_, 554 U.S. 570, 621 (2008), citing _Pressor v. Illinois_, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), both of which are available via "Google" search:
The Second Amendment "does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations".
In fact, all 50 states classify such fake "militia" as paramilitary organizations and PROHIBIT them.
Pick your state:
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/our-work/addressing-the-rise-of-unlawful-private-paramilitaries/state-fact-sheets/
1
-
@johnmullholand2044 Interesting how you make claims about the Second Amendment, ratification of which was completed December 15, 1791, based on 1600s ENGLISH law. And this is nonsensical on its face:
"Explain this then: without an INDIVIDUAL right to own and carry Arms, how will you have an effective "militia"?"
Logically a "militia" is not an individual -- correct? Also, as a matter of LAW, the commander-in-chief is the state's governor, who is an elected PUBLIC official, and the Militia is an arm OF gov't, its purposes being law ENFORCEMENT. Private citizens have no authority to take the law into their own hands as putative "law enforcement".
As for this:
"There were several regulations that REQUIRED the People to Keep (own) a proper firearm (in common use of the time)," etc.
There is an account of "revolutionary" Samuel Adams giving a speech, during the so-called "revolution," at Faneuil Hall, in Boston. During the speech guns were arrayed across the front edge of the stage. After the speech the guns were gathered up and returned to the PUBLIC STORES.
And note the date of this STATUTE:
___
At a General Assembly begun and held at the Public Buildings in the City of Richmond, on Monday the 21st day of October, in the Year of our Lord 1782.
Chap. XII.
An act for the recovery of arms and accoutrements belonging to the state.
I. Whereas sundry arms and accoutrements belonging to the public in the hands of individuals, who have neglected to return them to the proper officers; and it is necessary that such arms and accoutrements should be recovered as speedily as possible: Be it enacted, that the Governor do, on the passing of this act, issue his proclamation, enjoining all persons having in their possession any arms or accoutrements whatsoever, belonging to the state, to deliver them without delay to the Lieutenant or commanding officer of the county for the time being; and the sheriff of each county within this commonwealth, shall cause copies of the said proclamations, which shall be transmitted to him by the Executive, to be fixed up in the most public places in his county, and if after one month from such public notice having been given, any person possessing any such public arms or accoutrements, shall be convicted of having failed to deliver them up as aforesaid, such person shall, upon every such conviction, be liable to the penalty of twenty pounds, to be recovered by action of debt, bill, plaint, or information, in any court of record within this commonwealth, one half of which penalty shall go to the informer, on conviction of the offender, and the other half shall be applied in aid of the county levy where such offender shall reside. And the Lieutenant, or commanding officer of each county, shall make returns from time to time, to the Executive, of all arms and accoutrements so delivered to him, and also deliver them to the order of the Executive, under the penalty, if he fail in all or any part of his duty, of fifty pounds, to be recovered as aforesaid, and applied in diminution of the county levy. Provided always, that where muskets and bayonets have been by order of government placed in any county on eastern or western frontier for defence against incursions of the enemy, it shall be lawful for the Lieutenant or commanding officer to return such muskets and bayonets to the militia, taking a receipt from each person for what shall be so returned.
"A Collection of All Such Public Acts of the General Assembly, and Ordinances of the Conventions of Virginia, Passed since the year 1768, as are now in force; With a Table of the Principal Matters" (Richmond: Thomas Nicolson and William Prentis, 1785); "The First Laws of the State of Virginia" (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, Inc., "The First Laws of the Original Thirteen States," 1982), Compiled by John D. Cushing, at 176.
___
To emphasize: "arms . . . belonging to the state".
ALSO in the US Constitution is this provision:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia . . . reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS."
AGAIN: governance of the well-regulated Militia is ALWAYS UNDER BOTH US Constitution and STATUTES, AND state constitution and STATUTES.
1
-
@johnmullholand2044 "You need to demand a refund from whatever liberal "education" (indoctrination) you've received, as it's obviously wrong."
I'm not the issue, dunce: the issue is RULE OF LAW. The SUBSTANTIATION I use comes DIRECTLY from the directly relevant legal history and LAW from the original texts. Further, the Founders were LIBERALS who established a LIBERAL democracy. Hitler also hated "Liberals". And you obviously don't know the difference between education -- FACTS -- and "indoctrination" -- idiotological personal attacks. This is ALSO LAW, history- and law-illiterate:
___
No law protects private -- fake -- "militia":
See _District of Columbia v. Heller_, 554 U.S. 570, 621 (2008), citing _Pressor v. Illinois_, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), both of which are available via "Google" search:
The Second Amendment "does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations".
In fact, all 50 states classify such fake "militia" as paramilitary organizations and PROHIBIT them.
Pick your state:
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/our-work/addressing-the-rise-of-unlawful-private-paramilitaries/state-fact-sheets/
1
-
@emmittmatthews8636 Nope, false: Madison did not write the Second Amendment. It was written by the first Congress under the newly-ratified Constitution sitting as "Committee of the Whole". And the Senate also debated the writing of the Amendment; Madison was not a Senator. These are the basics:
___
Refuting the NRA's Two Second Amendment Lies
The gun industry political front NRA tells two lies about the intent of the Second Amendment.
1. That the Second Amendment protects an "individual" "right" to possess guns.
Comparison with the several prior Supreme Court decisions, and the legislative history -- the Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- shows that Scalia's Heller decision is an outlier. In Heller he falsely held that the Amendment protects an individual right -- for which he was excoriated by legal experts across the political spectrum for ignoring this adjudicatory standard:
When a conflict over the interpretation of a law cannot be resolved within the text of the law, one reverts to the legislative history of the law -- in this instance Congress's Debates of the writing of the Amendment.
The facts from those Debates:
The subject of the Amendment is well regulated Militia, and its purpose to establish a National Defense, relying on that Militia. The Militia is not an individual, a public institution, and arm OF gov't, regulated under both Federal and state constitutions and laws. The Amendment is irrelevant to the issue of private, individual gun ownership:
James Madison is called "the father of the Constitution," and the gun industry/NRA claims that Madison wrote the Second Amendment. If both of those are facts, then the word "people" is consistent in meaning from the beginning of the Constitution to the end of the first 10 Amendments. The first three words of the Constitution are "We the people," not, "We the individual".
This is the first draft of that which became the Second Amendment, which the gun industry/NRA calls the "Madison" Amendment -- but which it never quotes. [Here I clarify it for the logic-impaired]:
"The right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear arms [this phrase is the well-regulated Militia, and was drawn from four state constitution Militia Clauses] shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in well-regulated Militia] in person."
Source: Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Paperback, 1991), Edited by Helen E Veit, et al., at 12. (This volume is readily available from Amazon.)
Note the word "compelled": Militia service was a DUTY -- not a "right". And note the words "people" and "person": if a person -- individual -- claimed "religious" exemption from that DUTY, his case was scrutinized individually.
The only "individual" "right" Congress debated was that last clause -- "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service" -- and it was obviously voted down before the proposed Amendment was ratified. Thus the Second Amendment obviously does not protect "individual" ANYTHING.
Only by ignoring the legislative history -- Congress's Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- could Scalia falsely hold that the Amendment protects an "individual" "right".
2. That the purpose of the Amendment was to establish a "right" to "take up arms" against the gov't -- which is refuted by the Constitution itself:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS".
The Founders themselves twice established the precedent on the point:
Under the Articles of Confederation, "Shays's" inaurrection was suppressed by the state's well-regulated Militia, and the insurrectionists charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
Under the Constitution, AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, the "Whiskey" insurrection was suppressed by Federalized Militia, lead by George Washington, and the insurrectionists charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
The Congress, as a co-equal branch of gov't, has the authority and power to overturn Supreme Court decisions.
Overturn _Heller_.
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
1
-
@emmittmatthews8636 The first three words of the Constitution are, "We the people" -- not, "We the individual".
If Madison was the "Father of the Constitution," and if he wrote the ""Bill of Rights," as the NRA and gun-nuts insist, then "people" means the same thing from those first three words in the Constitution to the end of the First 10 Amendments.
" You have an agenda and you refuse to see truth."
I have an education in law; you do not.
The sources of the Second Amendment were four STATE constitution Militia Clauses. Those Clauses distinguished between two military force: the "right of the people," etc., which was the state's well-regulated Militia, and standing armies.
That phrase was included in the Second Amendment to establish continuity in the laws, and is a redundancy for WELL-REGULATED MILITIA, which is the subject of the Amendment -- which we know from reading the DEBATES of the WRITING of the Amendment.
Constitutional provisions are implemented by means of STATUTES. If you go to those four states' STATUTES you'll find, before, and at the same time, and after, "Militia Acts" governing and regulating the Militia. You'll also find that serving in the Militia was not a "right" but a DUTY, and one could be DRAFTED into that service.
But let's look at two Constitutional provisions -- ALL of the Constitution being in effect at the same time -- which ALSO govern the well-regulated Militia:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions."
That was implemented by means of STATUTE enacted May 2, 1792:
"An act to provide for calling forth the MILITIA to execute [ENFORCE] the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions."
And this:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia . . . reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS.
And, as the DEBATES of the WRITING of the Second Amendment abundantly show, the purpose of the Amendment was to establish a NATIONAL DEFENSE relying on the well-regulated Militia. That fact is underscored by a "Militia Act" enacted on May 8, 1792:
"An act more effectually to provide for the NATIONAL DEFENCE by establishing an uniform MILITIA throughout the United States."
Thus thee well-regulated Militia is ALWAYS UNDER the governance and regulation of BOTH US and state constitutions -- and "Militia Acts".
Last but not least:
___
No law protects private -fake - "militia":
See _District of Columbia v. Heller_, 554 U.S. 570, 621 (2008), citing _Pressor v. Illinois_, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), both of which are available via "Google" search:
The Second Amendment "does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations".
In fact, all 50 states classify such fake "militia" as paramilitary organizations and PROHIBIT them.
Pick your state:
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/our-work/addressing-the-rise-of-unlawful-private-paramilitaries/state-fact-sheets/
1
-
@emmittmatthews8636 "PA state constitution says "the Right of citizens to keep and bear arms in defense of THEMSELVES and their state shall not be questioned."
See the words "AND the state"? And AGAIN: constitutional provisions are implemented by means of STATUTES -- in this context "Militia Acts". Those included PENALTIES for violating the REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW.
This is also from Pennsylvania -- all the states enacted the equivalent:
___
In this the non-associators -- those who were DISARMED by the Founders, were those who "refused or neglected" to SIGN the "oath of loyalty" enacted by the Pennsylvania legislature.
Chapter DCCXXIX.
An Ordinance Respecting the Arms of Non-Associators.
Whereas the non-associators in this state have either refused or neglected to deliver up their arms according to the resolves of the honorable Continental Congress and the assembly of Pennsylvania, and effectual measures have not been taken to carry the said resolves into execution:
[Section I.] Be it therefore ordained by the authority of this Convention, That the colonel or next officer in command of every band of militia in this state is hereby authorized, empowered and required to collect, receive and take all the arms in his district or township nearest to such officer which are in the hands of non-associators in the most expeditious and effectual manner in his power, and shall give to the owners receipts for such arms, specifying the amount of the appraisement; and such as can be repaired shall with all possible dispatch be rendered fit for service, and the value according to the appraisement of all such arms, together with the repairs and transportation, shall be paid to the officers by the treasurer on the order of the council of safety for the use of the owners and defraying the charges.
[Section II.] And be it further ordained, That the same arms shall be appraised by any three reputable freeholders appointed by the commanding officer; but if the owner of any arms shall neglect or refuse to apply for such money within six months the same shall be applied towards the repairs of the arms; and the colonels are hereby authorized to draw for the necessary sums of money for the purposes aforesaid on the council of safety.
[Section III.] And it is further ordained, That the colonels aforesaid shall arm the associators with the said arms and keep an account to whom they are delivered and return the same to the council of safety; and every associator shall be answerable for such arms or the value unless lost or destroyed by some unavoidable accident or in actual service.
[Section IV.] And be it further ordained, That in case any arms so collected shall not be worth repairing, the same shall be laid by until such time as may be thought proper by the committee of the county to return them to the owners.
___
Passed July 19, 1776. "Ordinances passed by the Constitutional Convention, June-September, 1776," The Statutes at Large of the State of Pennsylvania from 1682 to 1801, Vol. IX, 1776 to 1779 (Wm. Stanley Ray, State Printer of Pennsylvania, 1903), Edited by Commissioners James T. Mitchell and Henry Flanders, at 11.
___
Because a primary purpose of the state's well-regulated Militia is LAW ENFORCEMENT. I recommend you see what the Founders did to the "Whiskey" insurrectionists; I'll help you out:
The Founders did not call the insurrectionists "patriots"; they called them "common criminals," and they were charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1