Clause and Effect

The New York Times Company ^ | December 16, 2007 | ADAM FREEDMAN

[Ken H]

You were talking about "a well regulated militia". They cannot be disarmed by Congress.

Of course they can. Congress was delegated the power to call the Militia into the service of the United States, as well as to govern and set training rules. You saying Congress does not have that power?

What does the second amendment have to do with the National Guard?

The NG is the organized State Militia, so it has nothing to do with it. That was my point.

The classes of the militia are:

(1)The organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and Naval militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or Naval militia.

--Title 10, U.S.C., Section 311:

[robertpaulsen]

"Congress was delegated the power to call the Militia into the service of the United States, as well as to govern and set training rules. You saying Congress does not have that power?"

Yes they do have that power. They do not, however, have the power to disarm the Militia which, today, is the State Defense Force.

The National Guard has nothing to do with the second amendment.

[Ken H]

They do not, however, have the power to disarm the Militia which, today, is the State Defense Force.

If it's the Militia, then I.8.15. & 1.8.16. apply.

The National Guard has nothing to do with the second amendment.

That's what I've been trying to tell you.

[robertpaulsen]

"If it's the Militia, then I.8.15. & 1.8.16. apply."

Yes they do. Are you saying that I.8.15. & 1.8.16. give the federal government the power to disarm the Militia?

[Ken H]

Are you saying that I.8.15. & 1.8.16. give the federal government the power to disarm the Militia?

Yes. If Congress calls the Militia into the service of the United States, Congress is in command. You think they could not issue a lawful order to those units under their command to disarm?

[enough_idiocy]

Wait a minute, we’re not talking generally here, we’re talking about the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Was it transcribed orally? Unless you can show evidence, which I do not believe exists, the Second Amendment contains commas because it was transcribed orally, this is a waste of bandwith. It wasn’t transcribed orally. The author didn’t through in the comma for shits and giggles. The comma is there for grammatical purposes and this article’s suggestion we simply make believe they’re there is ridiculous.

[robertpaulsen]

"You think they could not issue a lawful order to those units under their command to disarm?"

Not if they came armed.

[Ken H]

Not if they came armed.

If Congress ordered all units under their authority confined to barracks without arms, those who brought their own would have to comply.

______________________________________

The point is, Congress has command authority over these bodies, not States.

It is certainly true for State Militias, under I.8.15 & I.8.16., and we have already agreed that it is true for the NG. If I'm not mistaken, the State Defense Force is a creation of Congress, with authority delegated to the States.

That leaves a State without an organized force to resist a tyrannical federal government. The only body that even comes close, and is not under the authority of Congress, is the state police.

The notions that the Second Amendment was "meant to keep Congress from interfering with state militias" (Chemerinsky), or "designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possible tyrannical national government" (Bork) are obvious falsehoods. Do you agree?

[robertpaulsen]

"If Congress ordered all units under their authority confined to barracks without arms"

To what end? What follows? Why confine them to barracks? Then you have to guard them. Why not simply kill them?

You are one strange ranger.

"If I'm not mistaken, the State Defense Force is a creation of Congress, with authority delegated to the States."

They're like the original state Militias; 32 USC 109 provides that State Defense Forces "may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces" (of the United States).

"The notions that the Second Amendment was "meant to keep Congress from interfering with state militias" (Chemerinsky), or "designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possible tyrannical national government" (Bork) are obvious falsehoods. Do you agree?"

Nope.

[Ken H]

To what end?

What does it matter? The command authority can lawfully issue such an order to its units without having to explain the reason. The Second Amendment does not prevent that.

They're like the original state Militias; 32 USC 109 provides that State Defense Forces "may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces" (of the United States).

So Congress could simply rescind or modify the legislation, leaving the State witout that particular organized force. No help from the Second Amendment there either.

And we've already agreed that the Second has nothing to do with the NG.

So can you explain how the Second Amendment protects a State against a tyrannical central government?