2nd Amendment "Fraud"

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by Boreas

This is what the Constitution has to say about the nature and purpose of the Militia.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

This is Article 1, Clauses 15 and 16 of the US Constitution. It was written before the 2nd Amendment so, the Militia and its "regulation" as described here must describe the Militia as envisioned in the 2nd Amendment.

John

I forget the exact circumstances, but were not the Bill of Rights somewhat hastily added because without them too much power would be granted to the federal government?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by bhunter

I forget the exact circumstances, but were not the Bill of Rights somewhat hastily added because without them too much power would be granted to the federal government?

How would that change the meaning of Militia in, and its centrality to, the 2nd Amendment?

And, no, I wouldn't call the process hasty. It was very protracted with a lot of back and forth between the central government and the states.

John

[icenine]

Everyone forgets that the form of government we have is a federal one.....as in confederate in a generic sense of the word. It was designed so that not one branch can dominate another with a series of checks and balances. It works both ways. It protects us from tyranny from state government as well in the form of protecting minority rights.
So it is not just an argument about overarching federal govenrment witht the Bill of Rights.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by icenine

Everyone forgets that the form of government we have is a federal one.....as in confederate in a generic sense of the word. It was designed so that not one branch can dominate another with a series of checks and balances. It works both ways. It protects us from tyranny from state government as well in the form of protecting minority rights.
So it is not just an argument about overarching federal govenrment witht the Bill of Rights.

Actually federation and confederation are two different forms of government.

The primary difference, as I recall, is the degree of power ceded to the central government. A federation, which is what we are, has the stronger central authority. A confederation, which is what we were pre-1789, is too weak, allowing the constituent states too much free reign to go their own way, out of step with the central government and the other states. Our stab at confederation was a disaster.

John

[Boreas]

First Militia Act of 1792

The first Act, passed May 2, 1792, provided for the authority of the president to call out the militias of the several states, "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe." The law also authorized the President to call the militias into Federal service "whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act". This provision likely referred to uprisings such as Shays' Rebellion. The president's authority in both cases was to expire after two years.

Second Militia Act of 1792

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack. Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.

The militias were divided into "divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies" as the state legislatures would direct. The provisions of the first Act governing the calling up of the militia by the President in case of invasion or obstruction to law enforcement were continued in the second Act. Court martial proceedings were authorized by the statute against militia members who disobeyed orders.

************************

Now do you understand why the NRA types claim that the first part of the 2nd Amendment - the very first part - doesn't mean anything? If they admitted that the right to bear arms was, as it most certainly is, tied to service in a federally controlled militia, their entire argument would collapse.

John

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by Boreas

First Militia Act of 1792

The first Act, passed May 2, 1792, provided for the authority of the president to call out the militias of the several states, "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe." The law also authorized the President to call the militias into Federal service "whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act". This provision likely referred to uprisings such as Shays' Rebellion. The president's authority in both cases was to expire after two years.

Second Militia Act of 1792

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack. Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.

The militias were divided into "divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies" as the state legislatures would direct. The provisions of the first Act governing the calling up of the militia by the President in case of invasion or obstruction to law enforcement were continued in the second Act. Court martial proceedings were authorized by the statute against militia members who disobeyed orders.

************************

Now do you understand why the NRA types claim that the first part of the 2nd Amendment - the very first part - doesn't mean anything? If they admitted that the right to bear arms was, as it most certainly is, tied to service in a federally controlled militia, their entire argument would collapse.

John

One thinks that it is a given that every able body man would be armed back in the eighteenth. There is still a difference between the meaning of militia then and its meaning today IMHO. One also wonders what reaction the founders would have had if good old George attempted to take away their firearms.

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Actually federation and confederation are two different forms of government.

The primary difference, as I recall, is the degree of power ceded to the central government. A federation, which is what we are, has the stronger central authority. A confederation, which is what we were pre-1789, is too weak, allowing the constituent states too much free reign to go their own way, out of step with the central government and the other states. Our stab at confederation was a disaster.

John

You recall correctly! The AOC was doomed from the start, but I'm also inclined towards something less centrist than the Constitution even back then. I certainly don't think that the Constituion came anywhere near embodying Locke's ideals as enunciated by The Declaration Of Independence.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by bhunter

One thinks that it is a given that every able body man would be armed back in the eighteenth. There is still a difference between the meaning of militia then and its meaning today IMHO. One also wonders what reaction the founders would have had if good old George attempted to take away their firearms.

Well, today it means a collection of survivalists and gun nuts, a la the Michigan Militia!

Really, I hear this all the time but nobody has ever actually shown me this "different" definition. I mean it's not like there were no dictionaries then.

Also, it really doesn't matter what the nuances of definitions, then and now, are. We have, from 1789, Article 1 of the Constitution and then the Militia Acts of 1792 which, academic definitions aside, show how the framers and the Congress defined it, what functions it was to fulfill and under whose control it was to operate. That's all we need to know.

John

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by bhunter

You recall correctly! The AOC was doomed from the start, but I'm also inclined towards something less centrist than the Constitution even back then. I certainly don't think that the Constituion came anywhere near embodying Locke's ideals as enunciated by The Declaration Of Independence.

Pragmatism tempering idealism.

John

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by baconshorts

There is one very easy way to end all this debate. If the majority of Americans agree with Justice Burger then all we have to do is demand our representatives draft a repeal or clarification to the 2nd amendment and then it can go out to the states for ratification. No fuss no muss. Easy as Pie.

If there truly is a consensus among Americans then this is a no brainier. If not well.. go pound sand.

Naive.

John