PDA

View Full Version : Creation of new class of arms, "Militia"


nicki
10-24-2010, 10:59 AM
The Miller court upheld the NFA 1934 because no evidence was submitted to the court that a "sawed off shotgun" was suitable for militia purposes.

Now, I am not a legal eagle, truthfully I will admit to being a legal dunce which is why I will ask the follwing questions.

The Miller issue of wheter a sawed off shotgun was suitable for Militia purposes was never answered by the lower court in the Miller Case. Since Miller was dead he didn't put up much of a defense.

My question is could some group go back to the Federal court and open up the case for a finding of fact as to wheter shotguns with barrels under 18 inches are suitable for use in "Modern Warfare".

The BATF regulates guns using a so called "sporting purposes" test. This sporting purpose test would be fine for sporting guns, but could we create a new class of arms.

That class of arms would be arms suitable for "Modern Warfare".

See, Heller and MacDonald established that the 2nd amendment was a individual right, but the issue of our COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILTY to own arms suitable for MODERN WARFARE was not what either case was about.

Right now the SHEEPLE are scared by us having neutered EBR's and many can't understand why we would want to own such "Weapons of War".

Most Americans support our individual right to own arms, if we can start working on developing the "Collective Duty" part of the 2nd amendment regarding our duty to be trained, self equiped and ready to serve in the Militia, we could open the doors for undoing the NFA and GCA.

Consdiering that our borders are over run, that we have so called sleeper cells in our country, that drug cartels are taking over our national forrests, that street gangs control whole sections of cities and that budget cuts are forcing reductions in police, we have possiblities.

Nicki

Nicki

Some Guy
10-24-2010, 11:45 AM
While oogling a Serbu shorty on their website I noticed it said they had mil and le contracts, if that matters.

OleCuss
10-24-2010, 11:47 AM
I think I'd leave the sawed off shotgun concept alone at this time. Better fights out there IMHO.


As a society, however, I do think we should someday push the concept of universal service in a militia. I think, however, that I'd probably leave even this alone until CGF and SAF have completed their current course of action in the courts.

This is in part because, IMHO, the 2nd Amendment implies universal militia service as the reason why we have the individual RKBA. Since we don't have the universal militia in place one could argue that the individual right is thus impaired. I'd hate to see the RKBA limited to those who fit the current California Military and Veterans' code definition of the militia. . .

For those who'll point out that the governmental gutting of the militia concept does not eliminate our individual right - I agree entirely. But let's keep the fight focused on the individual right for now.

Once we've got strict scrutiny and a bunch of other stuff locked down I'd really like to see an NRA charge to get the universal militia resurrected. I think, however, that there'd have to be major changes in the NRA before that'd happen. SAF may be better positioned to make it happen.

383green
10-24-2010, 12:23 PM
I would be happy to see this line of reasoning pushed through the courts when the time is right. I don't think it's time for that just yet, but when our legal strategists determine that it's time to start getting rulings in this area... that'll be an exciting time, for sure!

Dreaded Claymore
10-24-2010, 1:04 PM
I agree with the stuff said above. I think resurrecting the militia would be the best thing that ever happened to this country in a long time, because I'd like to think that it would be followed by the abolition of the standing army, which unnecessarily drains blood and treasure in amounts beyond imagining. (Of all the military spending in the world, the US accounts for HALF.) It'll probably take generations though, because it'll mean fundamental changes to our culture.

dieselpower
10-24-2010, 1:31 PM
Are you saying the Courts ruled SBS are not protected because they are not used by the military and then only the military can use them....that contradicts itself...

Apocalypsenerd
10-24-2010, 2:18 PM
I agree with the stuff said above. I think resurrecting the militia would be the best thing that ever happened to this country in a long time, because I'd like to think that it would be followed by the abolition of the standing army, which unnecessarily drains blood and treasure in amounts beyond imagining. (Of all the military spending in the world, the US accounts for HALF.) It'll probably take generations though, because it'll mean fundamental changes to our culture.

Needed changes in our culture:

1) Integrity in our government become required

2) Liberty held as the highest ideal by our nation, both publicly and privately

3) The Constitution considered sacrosanct by our governement, except in cases where it infringes on liberty (such as the now struck slavery paragraphs)

4) Personal responsibility advocated for all things, including actions taken and national defense

We've got a bit of a road ahead of us.

I am all for it, by the way.

gunsmith
10-24-2010, 2:23 PM
eh, first lets get them understanding our basic right to ccw and that states must recognize other states ccw.

OleCuss
10-24-2010, 2:25 PM
Are you saying the Courts ruled SBS are not protected because they are not used by the military and then only the military can use them....that contradicts itself...

OK, I'm not really expert on this, but my understanding is slightly different.

The court said that since there was no evidence presented that the SBS has a valid militia application - the request for relief was denied.

So the upshot was that the case didn't show that the SBS's are used for self-defense or in defense of a neighborhood - and that kind of weapon is not used by the military either. Sorta puts it into an orphan category of, "Why does anybody want or need this kind of weapon?".

I'm not arguing that a properly adjudicated case would have the same finding - just saying that the above is my understanding of what happened.

Oddly enough, I remember hearing about a guy in Vietnam who was worried about the OPFOR getting a drop on him from behind. He hooked up a couple very SBS's with .410's to the back of his helmet. IIRC, someone actually did get behind him and he triggered his helmet and the bad guy was eliminated. The story may be a bunch of baloney, but it was entertaining.

RKV
10-24-2010, 2:40 PM
You can't have a well-regulated militia (as per the 2nd Amendment) if the militia can't perform its duties. Said duties are clearly spelled out in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution - "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions, So (IANALNDIPOOTV) arms used by our employees (the military and law enforcement) "should" be protected by the 2nd Amendment. Under Heller this is how we should (there's that word again) define "common use." Further I'd note the historical difference between the English and American rights to arms. No hereditary nobility here - in the UK your right to arms was (at least for part of its history) hereditary - knights got armor, lances, etc. yeomen bows, and so on.

Andy Taylor
10-24-2010, 4:47 PM
eh, first lets get them understanding our basic right to ccw and that states must recognize other states ccw.

States should not have to recognize each others CCW, All they need to recognize is "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If I have to have a piece of paper from the sheriff to carry a J frame in my pocket, my right is infringed. PERIOD.

OleCuss
10-24-2010, 5:39 PM
States should not have to recognize each others CCW, All they need to recognize is "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If I have to have a piece of paper from the sheriff to carry a J frame in my pocket, my right is infringed. PERIOD.

First things first. Get nationwide reciprocity and/or Ajax22's LEOSA system and that will make nationwide unfettered RKBA a much more achievable goal.

B Strong
10-24-2010, 5:59 PM
Gene's statement about things NFA comes to mind.

Until such time as a winnable case comes down the pike wrt NFA weapons and devices, establishing some new classification of firearms seems to me to be courting danger.

mdimeo
10-24-2010, 6:14 PM
I think that in the short and medium term, we're not going to get much legal mileage out of the militia purpose, because:

Scalia disingenuously defined the rkba as a right to keep and bear weapons "in common use", so weapons that the government has already effectively banned are out forever.
The constitution clearly gives congress the power to define the training that the militia is supposed to receive, and this could arguably be stretched to cover the class of arms to be used.
Regardless of what any given judge believes the constitution requires regarding military arms, it's pretty clear that few judges are going to have the stomach for judicially overturning bans on machine guns (extremely unlikely), short barreled rifles/shotguns (unlikely), destructive devices(extremely unlikely), foreign non-"sporting" imports (maybe) etc., on 2nd amendment grounds.


Anyway, this is all stuff that will have to come after a lot of prior legal (and probably cultural) groundwork.

mdimeo
10-24-2010, 6:17 PM
So (military arms) "should" be protected by the 2nd Amendment. Under Heller this is how we should (there's that word again) define "common use."

Under Miller that should have been the case. But under Heller, Scalia defined the arms as those in common use by civilians.

GWbiker
10-24-2010, 6:58 PM
For those interested in a short barrel shot gun, link will direct you to menu of what you can legally buy in Arizona...

http://www.paladinarmory.com/SBSAOW.htm

nicki
10-24-2010, 8:54 PM
First off I don't think we should be doing any NFA stuff until after we have built strong case law precedents.

Heller and MacDonald were narrow cases asking the question is the 2nd amendment an individual right versus a collective right and did it apply to the states.

We have a ruling that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, but what we don't have is a ruling that the 2nd amendment also implies a collective responsibility to be equipped, trained and ready for militia service.

A "sawed off shotgun" was not a constitutionally protected arm because it wasn't suited for "militia purposes" and yet today the AW bans single out arms because they are well suited for "militia purposes" rather than sporting purposes.

Establishing that we have a collective responsibility to protect the republic from enemies foreign and domestic and that to do our duty, we must have ready access to appropriate tools could provide us tools both in the court of law and the court of public opinion to get back and maintain our arms rights.

Nicki

hoffmang
10-24-2010, 8:56 PM
Short Barreled Shotguns will be the very last firearm we'd get the right to own. Leave this one alone for a good decade.

-Gene

kcbrown
10-24-2010, 9:17 PM
My question is could some group go back to the Federal court and open up the case for a finding of fact as to wheter shotguns with barrels under 18 inches are suitable for use in "Modern Warfare".

The BATF regulates guns using a so called "sporting purposes" test. This sporting purpose test would be fine for sporting guns, but could we create a new class of arms.

That class of arms would be arms suitable for "Modern Warfare".


Well, the answer to this one should be clear.

If the weapon is in the game, then it's suitable and therefore protected! :D

The real question is whether or not weapons from user add-ons also count. One could argue that since they work in the game, they're "suitable" and therefore also protected! :D


See how easy this stuff is?


:D

GettoPhilosopher
10-24-2010, 9:58 PM
Short Barreled Shotguns will be the very last firearm we'd get the right to own. Leave this one alone for a good decade.

-Gene

Just to clarify, do you mean NFA weapons will be the very last, or SBSs specifically? If you're saying MGs will come before SBSs, I'm intrigued to hear your logic.

Fyathyrio
10-24-2010, 10:18 PM
One potential problem I see with stressing the militia part is the definition of militia...particularly the age requirement.

311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are --

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;

and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia

I really don't want to have the age requirement become a back door limitation on gun ownership. Civilians would have until they are 45, former military until 64.

Apocalypsenerd
10-24-2010, 10:47 PM
Short Barreled Shotguns will be the very last firearm we'd get the right to own. Leave this one alone for a good decade.

-Gene

I just want to own a Gauss Gun when the technology gets there.

Dreaded Claymore
10-24-2010, 10:52 PM
My question is could some group go back to the Federal court and open up the case for a finding of fact as to wheter shotguns with barrels under 18 inches are suitable for use in "Modern Warfare".

The BATF regulates guns using a so called "sporting purposes" test. This sporting purpose test would be fine for sporting guns, but could we create a new class of arms.

That class of arms would be arms suitable for "Modern Warfare".

Well, the answer to this one should be clear.

If the weapon is in the game, then it's suitable and therefore protected! :D

The real question is whether or not weapons from user add-ons also count. One could argue that since they work in the game, they're "suitable" and therefore also protected! :D

LOLOLOLOLOL :rofl:

hoffmang
10-24-2010, 11:24 PM
Just to clarify, do you mean NFA weapons will be the very last, or SBSs specifically? If you're saying MGs will come before SBSs, I'm intrigued to hear your logic.

There is no US v. Miller for FA.

-Gene

dantodd
10-24-2010, 11:35 PM
There is no US v. Miller for FA.

-Gene

While new SBSs are essentially only a tax stamp away there are major supply and demand issues w/FA whether they are "core" to 2A or not.

NightOwl
10-25-2010, 5:37 AM
Short Barreled Shotguns will be the very last firearm we'd get the right to own. Leave this one alone for a good decade.

-Gene

So the AA-12 will be available for regular citizens within a decade, you say? Hawt dawg! Time to start putting money aside for ammo...

I just want to own a Gauss Gun when the technology gets there.

It's already here. However, it's only strong enough to put a good dent in an empty soda can at this point. They do exist though, and iirc you can make one yourself. There's a guy on youtube who did just that.

ironpegasus
10-25-2010, 7:09 AM
I agree with the stuff said above. I think resurrecting the militia would be the best thing that ever happened to this country in a long time, because I'd like to think that it would be followed by the abolition of the standing army, which unnecessarily drains blood and treasure in amounts beyond imagining. (Of all the military spending in the world, the US accounts for HALF.) It'll probably take generations though, because it'll mean fundamental changes to our culture.

Of course the majority of that cost comes from having all the high tech toys that allow us to own the airspace and consequently the battlefield. If we ever get into a fight with a real manly army again (one that isn't afraid to come out and fight instead of hiding amongst the civvies like the bunch of cowardly thugs we are currently up against), having that very expensive equipment will go a long way towards making things a sharp, decisive victory. If, however we continue to fight an ambiguous enemy, then yes, numbers are key and the relatively inexpensive infantry weapon will win the day (that and ROEs that actually allow us to engage the enemy - one reason why I wouldn't re-up right now if asked). Even after all that though, you need to train like you fight because you do fight like you train - and that is the advantage of a professional army - it's hard to address training with a conscripted militia and it also interferes with freedom, which we are supposed to be all about. Don't get me wrong - I think that some form of mandatory service would do a world of good for a lot of people and for our country in general - I just don't know that everybody is cut out for the military.

kcbrown
10-25-2010, 7:28 AM
I just don't know that everybody is cut out for the military.

I know I'm not cut out for the military. I'd wind up doing nothing but latrine duty as a result of always asking why I was being ordered to do something. :D

jl123
10-25-2010, 7:44 AM
Of course the majority of that cost comes from having all the high tech toys that allow us to own the airspace and consequently the battlefield. If we ever get into a fight with a real manly army again (one that isn't afraid to come out and fight instead of hiding amongst the civvies like the bunch of cowardly thugs we are currently up against), having that very expensive equipment will go a long way towards making things a sharp, decisive victory. If, however we continue to fight an ambiguous enemy, then yes, numbers are key and the relatively inexpensive infantry weapon will win the day (that and ROEs that actually allow us to engage the enemy - one reason why I wouldn't re-up right now if asked). Even after all that though, you need to train like you fight because you do fight like you train - and that is the advantage of a professional army - it's hard to address training with a conscripted militia and it also interferes with freedom, which we are supposed to be all about. Don't get me wrong - I think that some form of mandatory service would do a world of good for a lot of people and for our country in general - I just don't know that everybody is cut out for the military.

The above statement is just BS. You don't fight a large army with a small force by coming out and fighting in the open. Read a bit about guerilla warfare. They are doing it somewhat properly, unfortunately.

If you had an AK-47 and materials for an IED would you run out in front of a HUMV equipped with a turret mounted .50 cal mg?

Didn't think so.

That being said, this is going to be a looooong, but hopefully satisfying decade.

jl123
10-25-2010, 7:46 AM
I know I'm not cut out for the military. I'd wind up doing nothing but latrine duty as a result of always asking why I was being ordered to do something. :D

I know I'm not.....I'd always be questioning the constitutionality of my orders......and questioning why the government feels it has the right to tell me what I can own, ingest and do.

J.D.Allen
10-25-2010, 8:07 AM
First things first. Get nationwide reciprocity and/or Ajax22's LEOSA system and that will make nationwide unfettered RKBA a much more achievable goal.

IF you can afford the RIGHT INFRINGING 500 to 1000 dollar fee :rolleyes:

N6ATF
10-25-2010, 9:06 AM
IF you can afford the RIGHT INFRINGING 500 to 1000 dollar fee :rolleyes:

Indeed.

bigstick61
10-25-2010, 2:55 PM
You can't have a well-regulated militia (as per the 2nd Amendment) if the militia can't perform its duties. Said duties are clearly spelled out in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution - "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions, So (IANALNDIPOOTV) arms used by our employees (the military and law enforcement) "should" be protected by the 2nd Amendment. Under Heller this is how we should (there's that word again) define "common use." Further I'd note the historical difference between the English and American rights to arms. No hereditary nobility here - in the UK your right to arms was (at least for part of its history) hereditary - knights got armor, lances, etc. yeomen bows, and so on.

The right to keep and bear arms in England goes way back to the days where it was still developing into a real nation as does the English militia. It had nothing to do with nobility. I think the right to bear arms combined with the establishment of a militia goes back as early as the 8th century A.D. I'll have to look at my book on militia systems again.


Regarding the OP's suggestion, I don't think linking the militia clause to the keep and bear arms clause is a smart idea. The right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on the militia clause in the 2nd Amendment. I don't see why we'd want to make it so. It's the opposite we should seek and in the end the wording in the 2nd Amendment is fairly absolute. I think it's as bad an ide as actively trying to limit the definition of arms to small arms when arms is a much broader term than that.

And regarding militia arms, they could well include modern bolt-action military rifles. To suggest a militia today could only have select-fire and short-barreled weapons is to ignore the history and practices of various militia systems and someone could call one out on that.

Apocalypsenerd
10-25-2010, 4:46 PM
It's already here. However, it's only strong enough to put a good dent in an empty soda can at this point. They do exist though, and iirc you can make one yourself. There's a guy on youtube who did just that.

As battery technology improves, we'll probably have man portable Gauss Guns that are very effective. The same is possible for directed energy weapons.

I was just trying to suggest that firearms might be in 20 years, what a sword is today.

RKV
10-25-2010, 5:05 PM
on many points. Two to be specific.
The English right to arms does not come from militia practice, but rather from the Bill of Rights of 1689. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;"

As allowed by law in this context is where the bit about different classes having rights to different kinds of weapons. See also Joyce Lee Malcom.

WRT connecting the 2nd Amendment and Article 1 Section 8 it cannot be avoided. They are part of the same document. A well-regulated militia is one that can perform its constitutionally defined duties. Period.

383green
10-25-2010, 5:12 PM
I was just trying to suggest that firearms might be in 20 years, what a sword is today.

That should happen someday, but I think it'll require an unpredictable technological breakthrough. Firearms have held the top spot for man-portable ranged weaponry for so long (basically reaching technical maturity around a century ago for pistols and about half that for rifles, with minor incremental change since then) because chemical propellants have the greatest energy density by far compared to other stuff we've thought up. There's no man-portable battery or capacitor that comes within an order of magnitude of storing as much usable potential energy as a man can carry in the form of chemically-propelled ammunition. One could make an electromagnetically-propelled gun today that hits just as hard as a rifle and carries lots of projectiles, but the power source would fill a large truck. Batteries are better today than they were a decade or two ago, but even compared to battery technology from a century ago (i.e., lead-acid cells used in early electric cars), the total improvement doesn't extrapolate out to seeing them replace chemical propellants for man-portable weapons in the foreseeable future.

Now, that being said, it'll be really neat if guns become as obsolete as swords within 20 years... not so much for the sake of weaponry, but due to the breakthrough in portable energy storage/transport that it would imply. That would enable all sorts of new things that aren't possible today.

Apocalypsenerd
10-25-2010, 10:18 PM
We live in exponential times. Barring some poorly thought out governmental policy to restrict technology, you will probably see undreamed of changes in the next 10 years, 20years will be mindboggling, and I am not just talking about weapons advancements.

bsim
10-25-2010, 10:29 PM
As we've gone way off topic on a tangent regarding a specific arm (SBS), I believe Nikki's question centered on getting "militia arms" defined in the present day.

i.e. EBRs are "militia arms", and should be protected from silly little things like AWBs.