[Nicksp]

I stumbled across this aritlce on the meaning of the second amendment regarding private vs state firearm ownership.

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

Given that the Supreme Court is about to render a verdict on the DC gun ban, I thought it would be worthwhile to pass this on. I found this article to be quite educational and encouraging to those of us who support the right to private ownership of firearms. Hopefully, our justices will use similar reasoning in considering the DC gun ban and our rights in general.

A few of the things I found interesting:

Personal ownership of firearms, including common military arms, was fully understood by the Framers, and their peers, to be a fundemental personal right. In today's terms, the right to own assult style weapons is protected. At the time the constitution and bill of rights was written, possession of military style arms wasn't just allowed, it was required!

This right was longstanding before the US was formed.

This right is about protecting one's person, family, property, etc. AND fundamental to assuring the continuation of our form of government. All these concepts were well accepted at the time the constitution and the bill of rights was written. Only since the 20th century has personal firearm ownership been questioned.

Even today, the term 'militia' does not just refer to what we know call the National Guard. Congress still defines the 'militia' as the complete body of military age male citizens.

I hope others find this interesting.

Nick

 

[Cinhil]

Even today, the term 'militia' does not just refer to what we know call the National Guard. Congress still defines the 'militia' as the complete body of military age male citizens..

:agree: I wholeheartedly agree with what has been stated here. I quoted this portion concerning Militia and National Guard because there are severe differences between them which a large majority of the populace is now ignorant of, as opposed to the common knowledge of the average citizen 100 years ago.

The National Guard is neither a militia, nor a state guard, it is Federally operated with the Governors of the several states having authority to use them if needed, but being subject to national use whether domestic or foreign.

The Militia are bodies of men usually ranging from 16 to 45, unless otherwise requested or called upon, whose responsibility is to the welfare of the state and local communities in which they reside. They are subject to being called up by the Governor of a state when needed for the defense of the state or a community, or when disaster strikes. These are formed of both organized and unorganized militias. They belong to their state and none other unless that state asks them to aid another.

This information has been calculatingly eliminated from the majority of peoples minds by a very calculating government over the past hundred years. In 1890 no one would have known what a National Guard was, but everyone could tell you what a Militia was, as well as what its function was and who held control of it.

Unfortunately today, we only ever get the negative side to any militia story, even our President has shown ignorance here, whether intentional or not is not important at this time. We seem to be bombarded with negative images and slants and terms like ******* whenever militia is mentioned in the media. It is too bad that the ignorance which parades itself as Democracy has subverted the knowledge and power which once was so prominently vested in our Minutemen, our original Militias. If we are to reclaim our Republic this is one of those things which all of us must be willing to take up, the call to serve and be counted as the true Americans which we are.

 

[rdoggsilva]

Not only to 45 years old but men in to there 70's fight in the militia. People need to read and study the War for Independence, War of 1812, Indian Wars, Civil War (as we call it War of Northern Aggression) etc, etc. Up until WW1 the militia was our main fighting force, as the standing army was so small. I still consider myself as part of the militia.

 

[Cinhil]

Not only to 45 years old but men in to there 70's fight in the militia. People need to read and study the War for Independence, War of 1812, Indian Wars, Civil War (as we call it War of Northern Aggression) etc, etc. Up until WW1 the militia was our main fighting force, as the standing army was so small. I still consider myself as part of the militia.

This is true. In my studies though, many thousands have served well into there seventies, or older, the state militia requirements were usually set at or about the ages I mentioned. I too, consider myself to be part of the Utah Militia and I am young, at 48. Thank you for mentioning things as you have as I often get flamed when I bring up issues like this due to the prevailing ignorance of the normal populace. This does not mean stupid, just uneducated on this issue. It is all of our responsibility to educate ourselves and to then educate others. The hope is that the tunnel vision and media bias infused into others may be overlooked by those willing to be educated and who have open minds for the truth.
Thanks again rdoggsilva!

 

[Guest]

An interesting and informative essay; also wrong in so many ways. Did you read the whole thing? It is not only wrong in premise but it also empowers gun control to an extent that not even the Brady campaign would consider; and it does so using fallaciously assumed antecedents that may or may not germane and certainly are not applicable.

 

[UtahCFP]

I really like the 2004 DOJ memorandum opinion "WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT" that can be found at http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf.

The memorandum opinion states (emphasis mine):
"As developed in the analysis below, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right that may only be invoked by a State or a quasi-collective right restricted to those persons who serve in organized militia units. Our conclusion is based on the Amendment’s text, as commonly understood at the time of its adoption and interpreted in light of other provisions of the Constitution and the Amendment’s historical antecedents. Our analysis is limited to determining whether the Amendment secures an individual, collective, or quasi-collective right. We do not consider the substance of that right, including its contours or the nature or type of governmental interests that would justify restrictions on its exercise, and nothing in this memorandum is intended to address or call into question the constitutionality, under the Second Amendment, of any particular limitations on owning, carrying, or using firearms."