Skip to comments.Empowering the Eloi: 10 USC § 311(Civilians being armed)
Posted on 10/22/2013 10:44:39 PM PDT by rktman
So lets take a look at that pesky Bill of Rights thing again. The U.S. Code, in all its majesty, actually addresses an important Second Amendment issue:
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.
Thats right if youre an able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, youre automatically a member of the unorganized militia or reserve militia something quite distinct from the National Guard. Which means that you are expected to come to the defense of your country should the regular Army be unable to function or the situation require an instant first response. And in order to do that, you have to have and carry your own gun. If that doesnt settle the argument about the right to keep and bear arms, I dont know what will.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
My own idea of the thing is that the 2nd Amendment was written with reference to military arms, as the phrase “keep and bear” would suggest. The thing is that this goes well beyond the self-evident right to own a personal firearm, which, if it was overlooked in the Bill of Rights, was only because it would have seemed redundant to assert something so self-evident, like asserting the right to own water-pails, or any other thing.
It seems to me that the right to own firearms, as far as that may be distinct from keeping and bearing them, would be amply embraced by the Ninth Amendment, certainly in the minds of the Framers.
The last thing we want now is for the government to start taking some active role in "regulating" the Militia. That can only mean registering gun owners, registering guns, inventories of ammunition, mandated storage of arms in common lockups, and dozens of other infringements not yet imagined.
The only role the government has in maintaining the unorganized Militia is to cease infringing the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. That's it. Nothing else.
And yet professionally trained lawyers and politicians can make it entirely incomprehensible.
Question, the Constitution doesn’t say anything about people owning firearms. That’s an amendment. The Constitution instantiates the Militia with:
“To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;”
So then, the U.S Military is prohibited from these in the Posse Comitatus Act. Which is a law, not a constitutional enumeration or amendment.
Leads me to believe that the Posse Comitatus act is unconstitutional.
Societies have to think about how theyre going to approach the problem, Noble said. One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target youre going to have to pass through extraordinary security.
When one talks about the possibility of erecting permanent security firewalls around millions of soft targets, one must consider that, first and foremost, there's not a defensive line in all of recorded history that hasn't eventually been breached, circumvented, or otherwise defeated by a determined and creative enemy. Secondly, one must consider the astronomical cost of those defensive barriers. Thirdly, one must consider that most Americans do not wish to live under indefinite martial law.
The solution is clear and has been for over 225 years- keep the citizens well armed and well educated on the use of their arms. There is no other viable solution.
It bears repeating: there is no other viable solution.
The liberals who argue otherwise display an incredible lack of reason and have taken the innate stupidity of their leftist ideology to new heights and, in doing so, they threaten the security of the country, the constitution, and the American people.
This threat underlies our hatred for them. It isn't their skin color that we hate, it's their dangerously high level of stupidity which threatens us all.
Or perhaps the US military is unconstitutional? Or at the very least, not what the framers had in mind when they wrote and ratified the constitution.
The U.S military was instantiated in the Constitution. Thought I didn’t have to point that out.
It’s a constitutional conundrum.
Article 1 section 8 US CON:
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
Then, Posse Comitatus:
18 U.S.C. § 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Then of course the 2nd amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
How do those 3 things interact with each other constitutionally?
So what status do people over the age of 45 have? They would not be part of the unorganized militia anymore.
The Efficiency of Militia Act (Dick Act) 1902/1903 gave the basis of the militia within the US, and also give the authority to stand up the a militia, but further quantifies the rights of "the People" to posses weapons, it can not be repealed, or altered. If these idiots in DC tried, it would also strip law enforcement and the military of their ability to handle weapons, and what is called a Bill of Attainder.
Efficiency of Militia Act (Dick Act) 1902/1903 also negates any and all "gun control laws
If you look at the following written law, you will find that anything the government does to control "us" is suspect.:
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank. Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void , and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
So no matter how they slice and dice it, any law passed by these clowns that is repugnant to the Constitution, thereby being void, is in fact an act of sedition if not, treason against the Constitution and the United States.
But don't take my word for it look at title 18, 26, 27 the key is the definitions.... firearm...
Gulp! I just may be in trouble then. Well past 45. LOL! I guess we could be non-combatant advisers.
75 is the new 45!
It can easily be argued that the framers never intended for a large standing army to exist.
From Article 1 Section 8:
"To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;"
Look at how cost-effective the Maginot Line was for the French.