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

Are you referring to Israel and various "liberals" who support her?

My apologies. I was thinking of actual people making decisions based on ethics and/or beliefs, not politicians - you are right.

Exit, stage left (of course)

Oh, it is much more significant than that, R-S. You are referring to the wrong provision of the Act(s), my friend. What the Militia Act is based upon is Congress' authority, not that of the President. Indeed, Congress is required It says so at the beginning of the Act that I quoted. What has caused the confusion, I think, is that there are two portions of the Acts - one concerning the president's authority, the second, the section I quoted, addressing the organization of the militia.

I think that you have also conflated two purposes of the arming requirement. The first is to enroll all able-bodied men, the second is to address their equipage. Note, by the way, that only personal arms are addressed there, as armaments, weapons not personally carried/supplied by the individual, remain the responsibility of the government, State or Federal, to supply.

Actually NW, I have a copy of The Militia Act of 1792 along with the the revisions of 1795. Thus far I see no indication that membership in the Militia was requisite for gun ownership. Once again, I see just the opposite with no mention of such a requirement of membership to validate the 2nd Amendment Right to keep and bear arms by the general population.

Apparently I was not making my position clear. I was not intending to suggest that gun ownership was restricted to membership in the militia. Rather, I was noting that gun ownership was required of militia members - although not personal possession, as most militias provided for armories for the storage of firearms and assorted accoutrements for the convenience of their members.

That being said, there is no question that there is an explicit connection between gun ownership and the establishment of militias - as that is what the Amendment specifically says. Reading out "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," from the text of the Amendment does historical and structural violence to the Constitution itself. It happens to be the only Amendment so addressed which must have significance and cannot in good conscience be ignored.

As an aside, of more significance to individual rights, and more often ignored by the Courts, Congress and the President, is the Ninth Amendment, which states"That, to me, is the starting point for many discussions - for example regarding the right to privacy which certain right-wing Justices would like to elide from the Constitution.

By the way, I have now read enough of Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller to conclude that his use of historical references and legislative history is, as I had anticipated, skewed to get the result he wanted rather than a legitimate exercise of Judicial constraint. Indeed, he deliberately conflates post hoc rationalizations (of the latter 19th Century) specifically to obscure the fact that he is arguing from his conclusion - something that other Justices called him out on. These were not in the thought processes or contemporary arguments of the founders themselves, but they are convenient to his narrative, albeit inconsistent with appropriate legislative interpretation. Indeed, he would excoriate any other Justice that had the temerity to approach the Constitution with a "living document" rationalization that he so abhors, but is quite willing to employ for his own convenience.

Justice Scalia is, unarguably, an activist judge bent on imposing his personal predilections on the Constitution, rather than, as he so often declaims, respecting the text itself. Charlatan is too kind a word for him.

Granted Justice Scalia is everything you charge and more, the Court appears to be unanimous on the subject at hand:
Hat-tip: Instapundit

First, I agree with the Courts decision on Heller, but I am no more a fan of Scalia, especially on Habeas Corpus than I am of Kennedy on his stance in Kelso. I don't consider Scalia a Constitutionalist at all, he is arrogant and politically motivated. I suppose we shouldn't expect a neutrality within our Justices, but it would certainly be nice for a change.

Texas has an organization called the Texas State Guard, an auxiliary group which, IIRC, receives some state funding, does pack iron for security, that comes in and takes over the security and maintenance of NG armories where the unit has been called to service away from its community. Perhaps that's a bit too organized to be considered an unorganized militia.

A truly unorganized militia might be like the one a few years ago that consisted of mostly friends and relatives of Texas Army National Guard personnel in Houston who answered a hasty call for assistance to move a lot of motor-pool vehicles to a more secure location during a weather-related event.

Or more recently in the flooded Midwest, the unorganized militia might be thought of as all of those citizens who showed up with NG units to assist in sandbagging and other flood-protection duty.

Or perhaps the Minuteman organization qualifies?