Skip to comments.Procedural Tactic to Assure 2nd Amendment [Vanity]
Posted on 06/22/2014 8:21:46 PM PDT by DBCJR
I have an idea about clearing up confusion about interpreting the 2nd amendment. Suppose some state (like Texas, for example) created a group called "the militia". Anyone could join for free from any state. There would be no duties, just a database proving membership. Members would then be protected from onerous gun control laws.
As long as it’s “well regulated”.
Why does it have to involve government? Here is a much better idea: Form a militia like you describe, but keep government’s hands off of it. Whether it be federal or state.
That database might come in handy someday ... when they start rounding up “domestic terrorists”
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole
people, except for a few public officials.”
George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
We have an individual right to KBA now. The problem is with the term “infringement.”
Good Hunting... from Varmint Al
In common law, the county Sheriff is the de facto leader of the posse or militia. And this has a potentially useful legal angle.
If state law permits, which it does in some states, the Sheriff could announce that all adult residents “of good character” in the county were members of the reserve posse, and thus were *required* to own some type or types of firearms and ammunition. With no records, and no penalty for not owning a firearm or ammunition. Like Kennesaw, GA, but at the county level.
However, this means that if the feds wanted to confiscate the arms of the citizenry of that county, they could only do so if they confiscated all firearms of all LEOs in that state.
Lots of wrinkles to be ironed out in this, but it might work at least in theory.
Your theory/concept disproves unalienable rights and at a minimum marginalizes the phrase “The Right of the People” ie “.. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Next time don’t be fooled by asinine articles promulgating such fool hardiness.
We have state national guards. That doesn’t pre-empt the right of the people to throw off an oppressive government, which I am not advocating.
sounds great but when has this administration been concerned for what is can do legally?
I’ve got a better idea: Molon labe.
Please read the Dick Act.
Well-regulated means ready for war.
The militia already exists. There is no need to take any step to make “them” understand. Educate them on what is, do not make it more complicated than it has to be.
There’s no confusion. The Supreme Court has clearly ruled.
You bet. At the time the Constitution was written “well regulated” meant “hitting the target with monotonous regularity”.
Which in modern parlance means well practiced. So everyone sends in vouchers for their range time?
Is that like the Tom Act or the Harry Act?
Telling the truth to ourselves, no matter how unpleasant it is. Speech in Big Spring, Howard County TX, 21 June 2014
Not too bad for a speech I wrote on about
two and a half hours sleep.
I’d like to open my speech today with two
shout outs, one to my most devoted
sponsors, the One Hundred Heads Life and
Casualty Company and the other to the
twice-elected President of the United
States, Barack Hussein Obama, on the
singular milestone in his career, or indeed
of anyone who has ever sat in the Oval
Office. Sometime later this month, if my
estimate is correct, Mr. Obama will have
presided over the ONE HUNDRED MILLIONTH
FBI FIREARM SALES BACKGROUND CHECK.
Now, more a guy who’s only been in office
for a term and a half, that’d quite an
accomplishment as a firearm salesma
n representing the Unintended Consequences
Armaments Corporation, he has managed to
put even Bill Clinton in the deep shade.
Barack, you’re the biggest and best firearm
salesman in world history and THAT’S some
kind of legacy, so I would like to thank you
from the bottom of my heart on behalf of
the armed citizenry of the United States.
And we won’t even mention what you’ve
done for ammunition sales. But thanks for
everything, Barack. You may go down in
history as this country’s worst President
ever, but you are ONE HELL OF AN
You know, in doing my research before
coming here today, I noted with interest
that one of the major employers in Big
Spring these days is the Federal Correcti
onal Institution. This interested me because
I have so many people recently who are
interested in putting me inside of one those
places for what they imagine is my sedition
or even incitement to insurrection, not to
mention their irritation at my violation of
some newly oppressive citizen disarmament
state laws. To those who have been worried
in the past about the present administration
closing Guantanamo Bay, I always reassure
them, “Don’t worry. The Obama
administration will cease trying
to close Guantanamo the moment they
figure out that they can imprison US th
ere.” So, for those of you who work at the
Big Spring FCI, maybe I’ll see you through
the bars one day. Or not.
Folks, I am honored to be here today to
speak on the subject of “Restoring the
Constitution,” if for no other reason than
that task is what I have devoted the past
two decades of my life trying to accompli
sh. This is a subject that consumes the
attention of many Americans these days all
over the country. Yesterday I stood outside
town in the dust of the Old Comanche Trail
. Last weekend I gave a speech on the same
subject in Massachusetts almost literally in
the shadow of the famous Springfield
Armory where the men of Shay’s Rebellion
contended for their vision of what they
believed they had fought the Revolution for.
On Patriots Day, I was out in the Nevada
desert, speaking on the same subject on the
Bundy Ranch. In the last year I have given
speeches and talks at the Alamo, the steps
of the Connecticut state house in Hartford
and other places from Alabama to New York
state to Temple Texas. Next month I’m
going to Colorado and the month after that
I’ll be smuggling myself and some thirty
round magazines into New York just to
twist Governor Cuomo’s tail a bit. In each
place comes the question, “How can we
restore the Constitution?” How can we
return to the Founders’ vision of a
government of limited powers, which
preserves liberty and property while
upholding the rule of law and most
importantly operating within it? For this
administration, this regime, seems to
operate ever more increasingly as a lawless
gang bent not on the rule of law, but rather
the rule of man, which is to say the law of
the jungle enforced by the iron fist of
But how DO we restore the Constitution?
I think first and foremost we must tell the
truth, not only to those who we are trying
to convince to join us but, as well, to those
who are trying to defeat us However, and
most importantly, we must first tell the
truth to ourselves, no matter how
unpleasant it is.
As Patrick Henry said in his immortal speech
to the Virginia Convention on March 23,
“It is natural to man to indulge in
the illusions of hope. We are apt to
shut our eyes against a painful
truth, and listen to the song of that
siren, till she transforms us into
beasts. Is this the part of wise men,
engaged in a great and arduous
struggle for liberty? Are we
disposed to be of the number of
those who, having eyes, see not,
and having ears, hear not, the
things which so nearly concern
their temporal salvation? For my
part, whatever anguish of spirit it
may cost, I am willing to know the
whole truth — to know the worst
and to provide for it. I have but
one lamp by which my feet are
guided; and that is the lamp of
experience. I know of no way of
judging of the future but by the
And what, I ask you, have been our
experiences of the recent past? I will be
bluntly honest for I know of no other way to
say what is on my heart. We are at present
two peoples, two countries really, living
within a common border and sharing
(mostly) a common language but divided
upon the answer to this question: does the
government serve the people or do the
people serve the government? This is not a
question that the answer can be finessed
, negotiated or ignored. It is one or the
other, That of individual liberty as the
Founders intended or of collectivist power
in service to a few. Every smaller question
we struggle wit is merely a subset of this
larger question, every answer a component,
for good or ill, of the ultimate answer upon
which hinges the fates of our liberty, our
property, our lives and those of our children
and their children. Many of you will admit
that, in your heart of hearts, you know this
to be true. Yet we shrink from the honest
And that conclusion is that such mutually
exclusive worldviews cannot long coexist
without one or the other winning out.
History tells us — the Founders would tell us
themselves were they here — that neither
side of such a divide will surrender without
a fight, which means there WILL be a fight.
To think otherwise is to whistle past the
graveyard of our own history and that of
republics dead, gone and turned to blood
-stained dust when they could not overcome
similar corruption and collectivist rot from
within combined with barbaric attack from
We like to think that all our fellow
Americans — even those who plainly state
that they are committed to stealing our
liberty and our property and attempting
to control our very lives — are merely
suffering from differences of opinion that
can be overcome by the right mix of
persuasion or electoral politics. Yet how
many of us have tried such methods with
every fiber of our being and fallen short, not
because we were wrong, but because those
of the other side were impervious to such
arguments, such tactics, for they believe
completely in their right to their appetites
for our liberty, our property and our lives
with all the religious fervor of a pagan
worship of naked power wrapped in a
catechism of lies. They believe that the
people serve the government, their vision of
government, and you’d better do what they
say or else.
The Founders had a name for people with
such appetites, and it is honest to call them
by it. If as the Bible says that by their fruits
ye shall know them then let us call them
what they are — domestic enemies of the
Constitution. The fact that many of them
took an oath to defend the same Founders’
Republic that they daily attack should be
proof enough for an honest observer to
admit that the term fits such people. And if
no oath, no law, no court restrains such
appetites then what will? The Founders had
an answer, and you know it too, today, in
your hearts, if you are honest enough to
Let us be honest enough to admit first to
ourselves, and then to proclaim to those
domestic enemies of liberty and thence to
the world, that failing all other appeals to
peaceful means that the Founders’ solution
to such tyranny is still available, still
potent, still waiting. FOR WHEN
DEMOCRACY TURNS TO TYRANNY THE
ARMED CITIZENRY STILL GETS TO VOTE. This
is the promise, the warning, the threat
embodied by the Gadsden flag of our
Founders — “Don’t tread on me.” Don’t tread
This does not mean that the time for
politics, for moral suasion is over.
It is not. In many ways and many places we
are winning those battles, which is why
those domestic enemies of the Constitution
continue to seek to disarm us with
arguments less and less cloaked in their
alleged good intentions and more and more
in plain naked power. Such cries are in fact
maneuvers of, and evidence of, increasing
desperation. I told you that last weekend I
was in the Northeast, speaking to firearm
owners who in a very real sense now live
behind enemy lines. In the aftermath of the
Newtown massacre, their states passed laws
— Intolerable Acts, the Founders would have
called them — demanding firearm
registration and confiscation and making
resistance to those “common sense gun
laws” a felony. And do you know what
happened? Fully eighty five percent of
Connecticut citizens, threatened with arrest
by their new law, have not complied but
resisted. Eighty five percent. In New York
the number likely approaches NINETY FIVE
percent. Yet the politicians, having
declared their appetites, their desires to
work their tyrannical will upon their own
fellow citizens, are hesitating to take a bite
. In fact, they don’t know whether to
defecate or go blind. They are scared
spitless — and yes, I said sPit less —
by the thought that enforcing such laws on
an uncowed, armed people might have
personal consequences for them. They are
beginning to realize too late that the rule of
law as crafted by the Founders protects
THEM from us far more than it protects US
These men and women — these practitioners
of a godless secular religion which worships
government so that they may increase their
own power — these tyrant wannabes who
know of no argument of law, or history, or
logic, or even common sense that could
blunt their appetites, are now sitting at the
feast table that they so carefully made AND
THEY DARE NOT TAKE A BITE FOR FEAR OF
THEIR INTENDED MEAL BITING THEM BACK.
THAT is the Founders’ argument. That is
what we must be honest enough to admit to
ourselves, and then to proclaim to those
domestic enemies of the Constitution and to
the world. Forget all the arguments, all the
emotion, all the wasted effort we have
spent trying to convince people who will
not, cannot, be convinced contrary to their
own tyrant’s religion and the rumbling of
their own appetites for other people’s
liberty and property and lives. Forget that,
but remember this, in all honesty, that in
the end, our liberty is defended by the cold
calculation that every criminal, whether of
the common class or the Constitutional
class, makes when he sizes up a victim
, whether that victim be a person walking
down the street or a nation at a crossroads
— will my victim resist? Do they have the
means to resist? Do they have the WILL to
resist? Can I con my victim into putting
down what weapons he possesses? If you
convince the criminal that he will personally
lose more than he gains from such a
transaction, he will resign himself to finding
another victim, or, the case of the wannabe
tyrant, to retiring to play golf in Hawaii.
And that’s the honest truth about how to
defend and restore the Constitution.
So if you wish to stay free, prepare to resist,
defy, evade and smuggle. The Founders did.
The enemies of liberty will certainly never
be convinced by anything less.
Posted by Dutchman6 at 6:28 AM http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/ You may email Mike Vanderboegh at GeorgeMason1776ATaol DOT com.
ya....DHS would love to have an excuse to raid your home.
The reserve militia are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia. Former members of the armed forces are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code
State Militias a. k. a. State Defense Forces have already been formed in 23 states and Puerto Rico (Click here)
A couple of examples are Virginia:
The Dick Act spells out the various forms in which the militia manifests itself. Basically all able-bodied males are automatically in the militia, even the looniest left coast fruitcakes.
Of course there's confusion.
The Supreme Court can never be the final word, if a subsequent Court can nullify previous "final words."
The SC cannot claim final infallibility about anything.
"Clearly ruled" is in the same category as "depends on what the definition of 'is' is..." ' is...
And I always thought it meant "trained" and practiced to the point of competence and effectiveness for the purpose of civilian and personal defense; as opposed to a trained standing army.
Many, if not most, states already have Such a legally defined status, called the “unorganized Militia” in Maryland. MD does not keep a list, ‘tho’; that would be called an “Enrolled Militia”, and there hasn’t been one here since the Civil War.
Alas, membership in the militia, unorganized or organized (MDARNG, MDANG, MDNaval Militia, or MDDF) does not confer any
exemption to Maryland’s onerous anti-gun laws.
But I agree, creation of an enrolled militia force, with full exemption from ‘Gun-control Laws’, including the 1937 NFA, the 1969 GCA, and so on, would be a good thing for the Country, which is why we shall never see it.
Oh good. Another *database* in which to be included.
What could possibly go wrong?
agreed - who is behind this? really? and are they using this to collect info on gun owners so target them for something? like confiscation and/or roundup?
IMHO you don’t want your name on any central or distributed list of gun owners.
There is an interesting twist to the constitution. In past, the SCOTUS has found that congress is superior to state legislatures, and that federal judges are superior to state judges. But it has never found that the POTUS is superior to state governors.
This means, that when the POTUS and a governor are in contention, the only way the POTUS can enforce his will is with military force of arms. The last time this happened was when Bill Clinton’s mentor, governor Orval Faubus of Arkansas, rejected integration of Little Rock High School, and Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne to force it.
W. Bush refused to do so just when faced with inaction by the governor of Louisiana, after hurricane Katrina. Bush wanted to send in FEMA, but the governor refused to allow it.
The independence of governors also devolves somewhat to county Sheriffs, depending on the state. In many states, the governor cannot force compliance by Sheriffs. Yet at the same time, the governor acts as a buffer against direct action by the POTUS against Sheriffs.
A great example of this is the inability of Obama to force compliance from Joe Arpaio. The worst he has been able to do is to order Holder to investigate Arpaio over alleged civil rights abuses, though Obama would like nothing better than to arrest Arpaio and throw him into a federal prison for the rest of his life.
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.
It would via the 2nd Amendment.
I think you missed the point, “about clearing up confusion about interpreting the 2nd amendment”. You and I know what the 2nd Amendment says. This makes it pain to everyone.
I think you missed the point, “about clearing up confusion about interpreting the 2nd amendment”. You and I know what the 2nd Amendment says. This makes it pain to everyone.
It has to involve a state-defined militia that automatically triggers the 2nd Amendment.
That is where the confusion exists, to put it politely.
Apparently Democrats did not get the memo.
Wasn’t trying to be contentious.
Was just my quick response and looks like a few others saw it the same way.
we’ve been this road before and your 10 year old or 65 year old won’t be in a militia.
The original militia called to arms on The Green at Concord were comprised of farmers, frontiers men and other types.
when the regulars meet the militia on the green, to disarm them, they had enough sense to range the militia by 400 yrds, the outermost of effectiveness for Kentucky & Pennsylvania rifles.
The regulars Knew better than to engage closer, as their arms were, at best, effective to a mere 50 yards.
You know the story but, when that skirmish over most those guys went home and that fight was over.
But, for the Red Coats, it was “Game On” or war, to put down the rebellion.
once they had lost more men than they were sending over, the British sued for peace.
I guess to bide time, as they marched again in 1812.
Once again, the farmer, the frontiersman and sport shooters rained down on the British.
yeah, good for us. They wore red twice making them easy targets but, even during the Civil/Great War our best sharpshooters came from the private sector.
much like today, when I go to the range, by far the worst shooters are cops.
I sometimes wonder if they are just acting stupid . There’s enough you charge them with conspiracy.
There was a town in the 1920’s, Texas I believe, where the sheriff and his deputized henchmen were running a town for their own nefarious enterprise.
One day the town showed up armed to the teeth. They arrested the Sheriff and his chump deputies, tossed em the town jail and eventually charged them with various crimes.
after it was done, they elected a new sheriff and went home.
the point is, the power and rights are spelled out in the Constitution. They are personal and unalienable.
if the requirement to impair prosecution, was membership in an armed service, it would be impaired for failure to serve.
Yes but adding another step to the process is dangerous. It is fine the way it is.
I didn’t miss the point.
It doesn’t work under federal or state’s rights to require me to sign up while a California resident, to a Texas militia to protect my Federal Constitutional rights or in some places, federal and state Consitutional rights. It’s not what the 2nd amendment is about.
We’re free to resist tyranny wherever we live - without any restriction.
“There was a town in the 1920s, Texas I believe, “
Battle of Athens, Tennessee, 1946, returning war vets.
Show me where in the 2nd amendment that is says the militia has to be operated. Here is a clue - it ain’t in there. And for good reason.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.