PDA

View Full Version : D.C. v. Heller: Militia, you say.. Part II


aileron
01-30-2008, 6:36 AM
Good article, and the one concern I have with Heller. What does the SCOTUS interpret militia to mean. More important what do they interpret STATE-REGULATED militia to mean? There is no such thing as a state regulated militia.

http://www.goodforthecountry.com/



D.C. v. Heller:
Militia, you say.. Part II

2008 Candidates, call your office. It's what 80 Million gun owners aren't that wins this issue.

January 28th, 2008
__________________

The District of Columbia, which had gotten justice three times in adverse decisions that its gun ban was unconstitutional, does not debate, nor follow the law it quarrels with a civil right. That quarrel involves defying the rulings handed them, being slippery, as in asserting that the District is exempt from the Constitution, that gun owners are 22 times more likely to kill each other, and other methods of trying the case in the media after it's already been ruled against them in their own back yard.

Where framing-era language will reflect intent of the Founders, it is clear what Militia was not: it was not recognized as Military.

The question in D.C. v. Heller asks whether D.C. Code provisions violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.

This issue is disingenuously framed and it is without meaning. Here is why.

The suggestion within the pleading is that state-regulated militia is the only kind of militia. It is not. For instance, The Militia Act of 1792 and The Militia Act of 1903 both came into being to absorb and effectively to silence the militia of the framing era because Militia was legally independent of the Military and Commander-in-Chief. It was also independent of any state. Militia was not the same as Military. Limiting the issue in D.C. v. Heller is to mislead the question by omission, refusing to divulge the unorganized militia of today.

Also, non-gun owners need to understand that the idea of National Guard didn't come into existence until 130 years after the signing of the Constitution, so we know the Founders of the framing-era didn't mean state-regulated anything.

U.S. Code Title 10, Section 311 stakes out the unorganized Militia, which harkens back to the framing-era intent of the Founders that armed citizens be distinct from standing Army. The independence of the Militia was a threat to abusive political power by being an excellent and capable safeguard of the United States. By not being subject to the control of officials in any age or era, it still is a safeguard of the United States. Let us not confuse the interests of the United States with the desires of public servants (especially in how they ignore rulings while stating that we are a nation of laws). Militia as it is defined by U.S. Code co-exists with National Guard and has never gone out of existence. It never was a state-regulated entity.

U.S. Code Title 10, Section 311. . . [emphasis added]
(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.
Paragraph (2) is what gives it all away: . . .who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. 80 million gun owners, some of whom reside in the District Of Columbia, are not members of the National Guard, which is a state-regulated agency. Paragraph (2) provides for the existence of Militia Citizens who are not necessarily part of a state-regulated militia, such as the National Guard.

In short, Citizens of the United States who are not members of the National Guard are a legitimate Militia. Limiting the question to state-regulated is the very kind of abuse the Founders foresaw. Typical.

The pleading for ruling that a gunowner be a member of a state-regulated militia before enjoying a civil right is without meaning, because adults who are Citizens of the U.S. and not members of the Guard meet the test of militia. Put another way, the District misleads the question by insinuating that Heller is or must be a member of a group he is, in actuality, not required to be a member of.

In my opinion, the issue is not whether an individual must be part of a state-regulated anything to enjoy a right, a possible equal protection problem the issue is whether private citizens of the United States are in fact supreme authority which authority is backed by lethal force. Such independence from official control would be, of course, a safeguard of the United States, and perhaps against the desires of officials who keep searching for another toss of the coin until it comes up their way.

So far, it hasn't. D.C. has ignored three court rulings.

Besides, the Second Amendment doesn't say state-regulated, it says well-regulated, and Citizen Authority has done an excellent job of self-regulation. Let us not forget the DOJ's conclusions in answer to the question on Militia: see http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf dated 8/24/2004. In self-rule, note that 80 Million gun owners in the United States are excellent Good Will Ambassadors for the entire Bill Of Rights.

2008 Candidates, call your office.

I know issues get narrow when they reach the Supreme Court, but servants may not disarm the supreme authority of this country.

See also shall not be infringed.

jmlivingston
01-30-2008, 7:23 AM
There is no such thing as a state regulated militia.


How are you defining a state regulated militia, to say that there is no such thing?

John

aileron
01-30-2008, 8:22 AM
Show me one.

jmlivingston
01-30-2008, 8:49 AM
Sure, our own California State Miltary Reserve (CSMR). It's brought up here every few months, there are several of our members here who belong to that organization. One was even actively recruiting here for a while.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Military_Reserve

http://www.calguard.ca.gov/casmr/Pages/default.aspx

aileron
01-30-2008, 9:33 AM
Sure, our own California State Miltary Reserve (CSMR). It's brought up here every few months, there are several of our members here who belong to that organization. One was even actively recruiting here for a while.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Military_Reserve

http://www.calguard.ca.gov/casmr/Pages/default.aspx

That does not appear to me to be the militia, its just another arm of the military. Its not unorganized, its not provided with just officers. And they don't call out a muster for the folks in the area.

The militia does not exist in todays world.

jmlivingston
01-30-2008, 9:40 AM
That does not appear to me to be the militia, its just another arm of the military. Its not unorganized, its not provided with just officers. And they don't call out a muster for the folks in the area.

The militia does not exist in todays world.

The CSMR is not just another arm of the military. It's an all-volunteer organization responsible only to the state and not the fed's. The members are not paid for their time, and they meet one weekend a month plus two weeks during the summer.

Your original statement said nothing about unorganized, just well-regulated. That's why I asked you to define it, but all you could reply with was "show me one"..... :rolleyes:

johnny_22
01-30-2008, 9:54 AM
http://www.michiganmilitia.com/

As seen in the movie Bowling for Columbine.

Piper
01-30-2008, 10:22 AM
Just a minor observation, but have you noticed that governments through out history only make the carrying of arms by citizens mandatory when the government is faced with an enemy that could unseat them, but confiscate arms from citizens when it threatens the governments ability to rule over them. In other words, an armed citizen is merely a buffer between the enemy and the cowardly government.

aileron
01-30-2008, 10:40 AM
The CSMR is not just another arm of the military. It's an all-volunteer organization responsible only to the state and not the fed's. The members are not paid for their time, and they meet one weekend a month plus two weeks during the summer.

Your original statement said nothing about unorganized, just well-regulated. That's why I asked you to define it, but all you could reply with was "show me one"..... :rolleyes:


I will start here and work backwards.

Title 32, United States Code, Section 109

But its going to take some time to affirm that your correct and I'm wrong. Personally I do not believe for a second that the CSMR is a militia. Just an extension of the NG.

Librarian
01-30-2008, 1:53 PM
Good article, and the one concern I have with Heller. What does the SCOTUS interpret militia to mean. More important what do they interpret STATE-REGULATED militia to mean? There is no such thing as a state regulated militia.

http://www.goodforthecountry.com/

Perhaps I'm slow today, but I don't get your point.

You include a long quote arguing, correctly in my view, that membership in an organized militia is irrelevant, then wonder what SCOTUS thinks a militia is.

Your question and the quote don't seem to go together.

MKE
01-30-2008, 3:26 PM
If this link has already been posted, please disregard...a very good read: http://rebirthoffreedom.org/freedom/guns/the-definition-of-militia/

aileron
01-30-2008, 4:56 PM
Perhaps I'm slow today, but I don't get your point.

You include a long quote arguing, correctly in my view, that membership in an organized militia is irrelevant, then wonder what SCOTUS thinks a militia is.

Your question and the quote don't seem to go together.

Simply, the SCOTUS, created the question.


Whether D.C. Code provisions violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.

My thinking is simple: The term regulated was used in framers period to indicate functioning. SCOTUS coined the term State-Regulated. Therefore, because they rephrased the questions, they had to debate how to frame that question. Hence, when doing so, they either talked about and/or used the term militia and regulated and possibly assumed both their meanings while discussing framing the question. Possibly taking for granted the prefatory clauses meaning in totality as well.

And there in lies the question. Because the second meant well functioning, what do you mean State-Regulated????

Regardless of the articles correct articulation of facts, the author was not present to witness SCOTUS frame the question, so I still want to know what SCOTUS meant.

I don't see how that is out of line with the authors thinking, nor was it contrary to the authors thinking to ask what does SCOTUS mean.

Because it can have bearing on the future. In some ways, the militia is being removed from its rightful place in the 2nd, it appears to be protected by the 2nd as well.

jmlivingston
01-30-2008, 5:21 PM
I will start here and work backwards.

Title 32, United States Code, Section 109

But its going to take some time to affirm that your correct and I'm wrong. Personally I do not believe for a second that the CSMR is a militia. Just an extension of the NG.

What I'm taking issue with is only your blanket statement of "There is no such thing as a state regulated militia." while you refuse to define what a state regulated militia is. Apparently you have an "I'll know it when I see it" attitude; which is about as useful as the CA DoJ's ability to define a flash-hider versus muzzle-break.

You point to the U.S. Code as your guideline for saying it's not a regulated militia. You don't provide the text of the code in your reply, so only looking at that portion which is described in the article you quoted above we see that it only references organized vs unorganized militia. It does not discuss regulated militias at all.

U.S. Code Title 10, Section 311. . . [emphasis added]
(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.

Until you can make a case otherwise I'll stand by the position that the CSMR is a "state regulated militia". The officers are appointed solely at the discretion of the state, the membership to the organization is voluntary and unpaid by state citizens, it calls up its membership for training on a regular basis, and yet still has no commitment to any federal authority. Based on all that I would deem it to be regulated at the state level.

John

aileron
01-30-2008, 5:45 PM
The CSMR is not just another arm of the military. It's an all-volunteer organization responsible only to the state and not the fed's. The members are not paid for their time, and they meet one weekend a month plus two weeks during the summer.

Your original statement said nothing about unorganized, just well-regulated. That's why I asked you to define it, but all you could reply with was "show me one"..... :rolleyes:

Well, unorganized, really seems to be the meaning of the moment. Who and what were the militia, at framers time? Only the unorganized militia is the whole of the people today. Yet....

EDIT: They do state that all able bodied folks are the militia. So I redact above statement.

Only ask who was the militia?

http://www.guncite.com/journals/tmvarc.html



This is from the conclusion of the above linked article.

The militia of 1788 was the whole people. A basic republican principle was the viewing of the body of the people as society's natural strength, and combined with a fear of a standing army, dictated a reliance on the militia. The only exclusions from the militia were those who enjoyed less than the full benefits of citizenship. Any attempt at understanding the Second Amendment and similar provisions of the States must be in this context.

The National Guard of the United States is not the militia consisting of the whole people, but a select militia which is exclusive of the people. The dual enlistment leaves some state authority over the National Guard, but this authority is exercised only in the absence of federal dictates. All states and the federal government have provisions dealing with the militia independent of the National Guard of the United States....


.... Advocates of gun control will argue that the militia, however constituted, is so outmoded as to warrant judicial nullification of any provisions that would permit individual ownership and use of firearms. Although recent militia history would lend substance to (p.25)those arguments, Patrick Henry provided the answer in 1788 that is relevant today:

The voice of tradition, I trust, will inform posterity of our struggles for freedom. If our descendants be worthy the name of Americans, they will preserve, and hand down to their latest posterity, the transactions of the present times.[94]



Also, Well Regulated... what does that mean, government regulation? I think not. It means Well Functioning, Well Operating, Well Run.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm


The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen <halonen@csd.uwm.edu>

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Unfortunately I do not have time to exhaust this stuff out, to prove I am right to its meaning. So I hope you will understand, this is not my only source of this type of material. Its just a tip of the iceberg type thing. I leave it to you to look elsewhere to get more info that would satisfy yourself I am correct in using these sources or incorrect.

Cont. Next Post.... Hopefully... Im still writing it...

aileron
01-30-2008, 6:02 PM
The meaning of a free state? That meant a free country.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_03_04-2007_03_10.shtml#1173488580


"Free State," Straight Outta Blackstone:

A commenter in a thread below questioned the plausibility of the view that "security of a free State" in the Second Amendment could mean "security of a free country," as opposed to security of one of the States of the Union against federal oppression.

Well, it turns out that talk of what institutions -- especially military ones -- are good for a free state is all over Blackstone's influential Commentaries on the Law of England. There, of course, Blackstone had to have been talking of state in the sense of country or nation (American states as subordinates in a federal system were a decade in the future). Consider, for instance, book 1, p. 408 (emphasis added):

In a land of liberty it is extremely dangerous to make a distinct order of the profession of arms. In absolute monarchies this is necessary for the safety of the prince, and arises from the main principle of their constitutions, which is that of governing by fear: but in free states the profession of a soldier, taken singly and merely as a profession, is justly an object of jealousy. In these no man should take up arms, but with a view to defend his country and it's laws: he puts not off the citizen when he enters the camp; but it is because he is a citizen, and would wish to continue so, that he makes himself for a while a soldier.

Or book 1, p. 415 (emphasis added):

To prevent the executive power from being able to oppress, says Baron Montesquieu, it is requisite that the armies with which it is intrusted should consist of the people, and have the same spirit with the people; as was the case at Rome till Marius new-modeled the legions by enlisting the rabble of Italy, and laid the foundation of all the military tyranny that ensued. Nothing, then, according to these principles, ought to be more guarded against in a free state than making the military power, when such a one is necessary to be kept on foot, a body too distinct from the people.

Or book 1 p. 417 (emphasis added):

Nor is this state of servitude [created by excessively rigorous military discipline during peacetime] quite consistent with the maxims of sound policy observed by other free nations. . For, the greater the general liberty is which any state enjoys, the more cautious has it usually been of introducing slavery in any particular order or profession. These men, as baron Montesquieu observes, seeing the liberty which others possess, and which they themselves are excluded from, are apt (like eunuchs in the eastern seraglios) to live in a state of perpetual envy and hatred towards the rest of the community; and indulge a malignant pleasure in contributing to destroy those privileges, to which they can never be admitted. Hence have many free states, by departing from this rule, been endangered by the revolt of their slaves: while, in absolute and despotic governments where there no real liberty exists, and consequently no invidious comparisons can be formed, such incidents are extremely rare. Two precautions are therefore advised to be observed in all prudent and free governments; 1. To prevent the introduction of slavery at all: or, 2. If it be already introduced, not to intrust those slaves with arms; who will then find themselves an overmatch for the freemen. Much less ought the soldiery to be an exception to the people in general, and the only state of servitude in the nation.

Likewise, Blackstone refers to what is good for free states in discussing the liberty of the press ("The liberty of the press is, indeed, essential to the nature of a free state," book 4, p. 151), in discussing the value of popular government ("In a free state every man, who is supposed a free agent, ought to be in some measure his own governor," book 4, p. 158) -- and in praising what he saw as the calming force of the established Church of England (book 4, p. 104):

[R]eligious principles, which (when genuine and pure) have an evident tendency to make their professors better citizens as well as better men, have (when perverted and erroneous) been usually subversive of civil government, and been made both the cloak and the instrument of every pernicious design that can be harboured in the heart of man. The unbounded authority that was exercised by the druids in the west, under the influence of pagan superstition, and the terrible ravages committed by the Saracens in the east, to propagate the religion of Mahomet, both witness to the truth of that antient universal observation: that in all ages and in all countries, civil and ecclesiastical tyranny are mutually productive of each other. It is therefore the glory of the church of England, that she inculcates due obedience to lawful authority, and hath been (as her prelates on a trying occasion once expressed itc) in her principles and practice ever most unquestionably loyal. The clergy of her persuasion, holy in their doctrines and unblemished in their lives and conversation, are also moderate in their ambition, and entertain just notions of the ties of society and the rights of civil government. As in matters of faith and morality they acknowlege no guide but the scriptures, so, in matters of external polity and of private right, they derive all their title from the civil magistrate; they look up to the king as their head, to the parliament as their law-giver, and pride themselves in nothing more justly, than in being true members of the church, emphatically by law established. Whereas the notions of ecclesiastical liberty, in those who differ from them, as well in one extreme as the other, (for I here only speak of extremes) are equally and totally destructive of those ties and obligations by which all society is kept together; equally encroaching on those rights, which reason and the original contract of every free state in the universe have vested in the sovereign power; and equally aiming at a distinct independent supremacy of their own, where spiritual men and spiritual causes are concerned.

And life in a free state may also be reason to suffer some inconvenience, book 3, p. 423 (paraphrasing Montesquieu):

But in free states [unlike despotisms such as Turkey] the trouble, expense, and delays of judicial proceedings are the price that every subject pays for his liberty ....

Montesquieu generally used "a free state" in similar ways: "In a free state, every man, who is supposed a free agent, ought to be concerned in his own government: Therefore the legislative should reside in the whole body of the people, or their representatives"; see also the references to "a free state" in this, albeit later, translation of Montesquieu's The Spirit of Laws.

"State" as "country" (or perhaps more precisely a self-governing nation) is of course pretty longstanding usage; article I, section 9, for instance, bars federal officeholders from accepting presents or titles from "any ... foreign state." Article III, section 2 and the Eleventh Amendment likewise use "foreign state" to mean foreign country. But beyond this, "a free state" as indicating what Englishmen and Americans should cherish and aspire to, is right from Blackstone and other contemporaneous writers.


Okay so all of that lays an interesting foundation of what the prefatory clause of the 2nd means. "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State"

cont... in next post...

aileron
01-30-2008, 6:22 PM
Also, before I go over your CSMR, understand I do not disrespect the Military, the National Guard, CSMR, or those brave and patriotic souls who enlist/volunteer.

I concede your considered PART of the militia. From two places I find in the California Military Reserve Code.


MILITARY AND VETERANS CODE
SECTION 120-130

120. The militia of the State shall consist of the National Guard,
State Military Reserve and the Naval Militia--which constitute the
active militia --and the unorganized militia.

121. The unorganized militia consists of all persons liable to
service in the militia, but not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

122. The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male
citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their
intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between
the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the
State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be
enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this
division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be
hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.


Under the state Military Reserve Act we find.


550. Whenever any part of the National Guard of this State is in
active federal service, or when Congress so consents thereto, the
Governor is hereby authorized to organize and maintain within this
State during such period, under such regulations as the Secretary of
Defense of the United States may prescribe for discipline in
training, such military forces as the Governor may deem necessary to
defend and for the security of this State; provided, however, the
Governor may authorize the organization and maintenance of such
forces at cadre strength at any time. Such forces shall be composed
of officers commissioned or assigned, and such qualified citizens or
aliens who have declared their intentions to become citizens as shall
volunteer for service therein, supplemented, if necessary, by
members of the unorganized militia enrolled by draft or otherwise as
provided by law. Such forces shall be additional to and distinct
from the National Guard and shall be known as the State Military
Reserve. Such forces shall be uniformed under such conditions and
subject to such regulations as the Governor may prescribe.

563. All members of said forces are hereby declared to be engaged
in military service within the meaning of that term as used in
Article XXIV of the Constitution of this State and are exempt from
civil service.

Interesting tidbits, it appears CSMR is temporary, and I cant find Article XXIV of the State Constitution. :(

Now... what bothers me about CSMR from a militia definition. Your volunteer but you don't provide your own arms. You do so as a member of a select group of volunteers. We are not all members of CSMR, and lastly your considered Active Militia the same as the National Guard.

It begs the question, where does the militia muster? And where does the unorganized militia go to become part of the militia but not the CSMR?

I'm tired. So I'm going to stop here for now. My ideas of militia are different then what the government would like it to be. They will organize their own under their direct control. But from what I get of the readings of a militia. It don't work quite that way.

The original post goes through Title 32, United States Code, Section 109... I'll come back to that a bit later. Taking a break, its no big deal actually. Just pointed out where the CSMR gets its authority for creation IIRC.

otalps
01-30-2008, 6:44 PM
I don't see how the idea of a State regulated Militia or anything for the matter even comes into the argument. It is nothing more than a poor excuse thought up by a stupid or evil anti and carried on by more stupid or evil anti's. There is no ambiguity in the writing of the second amendment.

It is written in plain English. It is grammatically correct, it is simply in grammatical terms a complex sentence with a dependent clause followed by an independent clause. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the Security of a free state, has nothing to do with the right that is being supported that is the the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

To use an example stolen from somebody else. "A nice working gas tank, being necessary for a functioning automobile, I went and filled my tank."

The dependent clause about the nice working gas tank being necessary for a functioning automobile has nothing to do with the independent clause of whether or not I filled my gas tank.

falawful
01-30-2008, 7:50 PM
Gents,

That's one of the things that I think would bring down some bs gun laws. The feds define the militia. The states don't.

You can't say that the organized militia has the right to bear arms and the unorganized milita doesn't. They all have the same right per USC....

jmlivingston
01-30-2008, 11:48 PM
Aileron,

Don't get me wrong, I fully support all your saying as it relates to 2nd amendment rights. The only component I disagree with you on is your blanket statement "There is no such thing as a state regulated militia." Until "state regulated militia" can be defined we can't even really get our arms around it well enough to have a good debate about whether it exists or not. So far you've replied with numerous, and even well written, posts about a number of very closely related topics on which I agree with you on. Yet there is still no definition here of what a "state regulated militia" is for us to have this conversation.

So lets work on that and go from there. I'll even go so far as put forth that maybe the CSMR is not a state regulated militia, but until we can get that defined a little further it sure seems like it would be a good candidate to be one in lieu of any further definition. The Michigan Volunteer Defense Force seems to be another one worthy of discussion, though I'll confess I know little about that particular organization.

We've already come to agreement that the CSMR is a part of the militia. That leaves only "state regulated" left to discuss. Not "well regulated" which you define in post 14 of this thread and to which definition I'm more than happy to concur with. Nothing in post 15 here is germaine to the discussion of this fine point either (maybe to some of your other points, but not to my issue with your refusal to admit the possible existance of any state regulated militia).

Though I would certainly hope that the CSMR is "Well Functioning, Well Operating, Well Run" that is not at issue here. The issue of "state regulated" would seem to be one of whom is doing the regulating (or possibly even one of whom is being regulated) rather than to what degree of effectiveness the regulating is having i.e. "well regulated". The CSMR is certainly run via "government regulation" by the state, as an institution of the state, it exists solely within the state, it is made up of citizens of the state, its function and operation is by and for the state.

So until further definition can be provided I'll maintain my position that the CSMR is a state regulated militia.



...I cant find Article XXIV of the State Constitution.


Apparently during one of the many, many, modifications to our state constitution Article XXIV was renumbered to Article VII. Or VII was modified to include XXIV verbatim, not sure which and doesn't make much difference. Basically whenever you see XXIV look at VII. Gotta love our state constitution.... :mad: Truly a living document the way it's constantly being modified.


John

aileron
01-31-2008, 5:49 PM
Aileron,

Don't get me wrong, I fully support all your saying as it relates to 2nd amendment rights. The only component I disagree with you on is your blanket statement "There is no such thing as a state regulated militia."



Yea, I was in a hurry at work when I wrote that, so it probably could of been stated better, but it really comes down to what your suggesting below. What is a state regulated militia? In my mind, one has never been defined, therefore it might exist but doesn't appear to exist. Or at least I don't remember hearing state regulated militia until SCOTUS said it. Not saying it hasn't been said before. But from what I can tell its not what the founders understood it to be. Or so I think the founders meant it to be. What I gather, is that the real militia the founders intended has been so neglected as to not exist.

Until "state regulated militia" can be defined we can't even really get our arms around it well enough to have a good debate about whether it exists or not. So far you've replied with numerous, and even well written, posts about a number of very closely related topics on which I agree with you on. Yet there is still no definition here of what a "state regulated militia" is for us to have this conversation.



Apparently during one of the many, many, modifications to our state constitution Article XXIV was renumbered to Article VII. Or VII was modified to include XXIV verbatim, not sure which and doesn't make much difference. Basically whenever you see XXIV look at VII. Gotta love our state constitution.... :mad: Truly a living document the way it's constantly being modified.


John


Thanks for the info and .... sheesh... kinda.... scary.

capo
01-31-2008, 6:19 PM
There is no such thing as a state regulated militia.

yeah there is.

capo
01-31-2008, 6:23 PM
By the way, if anyone is interested in joining the CSMR, PM me, we have a recruiting event this weekend in Long Beach.