Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Guns Court Rules in Favor of Second Amendment Gun Right

What militia might this be? Are there currently state militias outside of the National Guard?

That is addressed by this part of the quote:

Yours,
Issodhos

Yes, each of the States has the authority to create State militias that are not part of, or paid for by, the United States government. In order to be part of the National Guard they have to be "federally recognized" and meet the training requirements, established by Congress, and set forth in various statutes and regulations. It is possible for someone to lose federal recognition and remain a part of the State militia, but it doesn't happen often.

I noted earlier that R Seditionist thoroughly presented the anti-federalist position with regard to the Second Amendment. It is not, however, comprehensive in the sense that it only selectively quotes from those anti-federalists that support that particular reading of the Constitution. I have not yet had the time to thoroughly read the Heller decision, so I cannot comment on the Court's reading, but I don't trust Justice Scalia to approach interpretation with anything other than a pre-conceived answer. That has always been his modus operandi. He is probably the most activist Justice on the Court, as Phil has previously noted.

NW...

I was not simply presenting the Anti-Federalist side of the issue, for the evidence is clear that on this subject the Federalists and Anti-Federalist were in complete agreement.

Alexander Hamilton, perhaps one of the most ardent Federalist of the bunch had enough to say on the subject and was pretty darn explicit as to the purpose of this right to keep and bear arms:

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

The "Father of our Country" George Washington, also a Federalist: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)

Noah Webster, another Federalist said:"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that axists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

I appreciate the quotes, RS, I just don't think that they truly reflect the breadth of thought of the times. As you may know, I believe that the Second Amendment does reflect an individual's right to possess and bear firearms, but even Jefferson recognized that that right was intended to be of limited utility, as he supported the proposition in the Virginia legislature that the right was intended to be to possess and bear within the confines of one's property firearms, and to make them available as needed by the militia. A New Paradigm for the Second Amendment Indeed, the initial legislation on the issue contained a requirement that if one did not possess personal weapons, they were to acquire them for the purpose of provisioning the militia. The Militia Act of 1792

It seems surprising to me, then, that modern anti-control advocates forget that the requirement to register as a member of the militia is as old as the organization itself. They seem overly concerned that guns must be registered, yet that is clearly the implication of the earliest legislation, a provision that is conveniently overlooked. My point is primarily to say two things: While the right to keep and bear arms is for an individual, the overriding purpose for that was to provide arms for the militia in times of emergency. Second, that viewing it as primarily a bulwark against federal government intrusion is a convenient modern construction and was not the primary motivation for its inclusion in the Constitution.

Further on some issues raised above....
As we consider the founder's intent, it is clear that their intent was to avoid maintenance of a large standing army. As I understand it, they felt that a large army would be prohibitively expensive as well as presenting a danger of potential abuse.


It is beyond argument that the unanticipated existence of the current large standing army has had a profound impact on our nation. Should one feel it is important to return our nation to the founder's intent, I would propose elimination of the large standing army as the most logical and effective place to begin that quest.

Oh, I definitely believe that there should be rational and reasonable controls on guns, but definitely not in a commonly understood sense of control. However, the first and foremost control should be on the largest purveyor of dangerous weapons and that is the U.S. government. I find it particularly offensive and extremely hypocritical that there are those in the Gun-Control groups who are all too willing to remove guns from our society while seeing nothing wrong with our own government supplying guns and weapons to every single side in just about every single conflict around the world. Our government is the largest dangerous weapons dealer and supplier in the world.

The Militia Act of 1792 concerned the authority of the President to call out the Militia of each State “whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe…”

Now, within the Militia Act of 1792 you will notice one very important sentence: “provide himself with a good musket or firelock” the requirement of registering with the Militia was not a prerequisite for gun ownership however, gun ownership was definitely a prerequisite for registering with the Militia. The purpose for the Militia Act of 1792 was to ensure that the Militia was manned adequately in case of war and had absolutely nothing to do with guns or gun ownership or the registration of those guns, but it made it clear that to be registered in the Militia, a man must own a gun.

Side note:


For what it's worth, I've never met anyone who thought gun control was a good idea here in the US, who also believed that international arms sales were a good idea.

I'm sure such people exist, I just think they're very rare; as I said, I've never met one. YMMV.

With respect,

Strange I see the voting record of numerous politicians who advocate gun control also seem to advocate, by their voting record and the speeches on the Hill, the sell of weapons to various factions overseas, especially in the Middle East. I could provide you with a long and extensive list of politicians who don't seem to see a conflict in such support. Let's not mention the support of such politicians for illegal acts of offensive war.