Skip to comments.Montana legislator proposes well regulated militia; CSGV shrieks 'Insurrection!'
Posted on 02/10/2011 3:47:02 AM PST by marktwain
The forcible citizen disarmament lobby has, for the last couple decades, argued that the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment is a "collective" right, rather than a right of individuals. The argument goes something like, "Because the text of the Second Amendment begins with a statement of the necessity of a well regulated militia, 'right of the people' doesn't really mean . . . 'right of the people,'" or something like that. That, anyway, is how the argument goes when they don't decide to simply edit the "of the people" part entirely out of the amendment.
That interpretation was discredited nearly three years ago, in the Supreme Court's Heller decision, which ruled that the right to possess firearms is not conditional on membership in a militia, but that hasn't stopped some gun prohibitionists from continuing to argue that there is no Consitutionally guaranteed right to own guns, outside a "well regulated militia." Many of them then go on to say that today's militia is the National Guard, as if Perpich v. DoD never happened.
Even setting aside the numerous serious weaknesses in the argument that the Second Amendment protects only government-sanctioned miltias' right to keep and bear arms, the absurdity of the gun ban lobby's arguments becomes even more apparent when a state considers forming a well regulated militia, and we're told that this smacks of "Insurrectionism"--always capitalized, as per the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) rules of grammar.
That's what we're seeing now (a tip of the hat to blogger Thirdpower), with Montana State Representative Wendy Warburton's introduction of House Bill 278. From the Billings Gazette:
Rep. Wendy Warburton, of Havre, told the House State Administration Committee that House Bill 278 would let residents organize military-like companies called "home guards" that would answer to the governor and sheriffs during emergencies.
Warburton said slow response and poor organization during major emergencies in the past prompted her to sponsor the bill.
"Really the bill is just about local volunteers being prepared in case of emergency to support the National Guard, support the sheriff, support the governor as needed," Warburton said.
A state-sanctioned group of volunteers equipped and trained to help during emergencies--sounds benign enough, doesn't it? Well, not to the CSGV. From the latest entry on their "Insurrectionist Timeline" (which begins with the Supreme Court's Heller ruling):
February 4, 2011Montana Rep. Wendy Warburton (R-Havre) introduces legislation to allow state residents to organize armed units called "home guards" that would answer to the governor and sheriffs during emergenices. These paramilitary groups would be formed into "infantry companies" with their own uniforms, flags, and identities, and would not be subject to federal oversight or control.
Remember, now, that according to the "collective rights" interpretation, the Second Amendment exists only to protect the states' power to raise and equip militias, without interference from the federal government. Now, when a state proposes to do that, the CSGV screams about the lack of "federal oversight or control."
"Insurrectionism" is one of CSGV's pet issues, as we discussed in a three-part series, here, here and here (and revisited here). The CSGV is perhaps the only U.S. "gun control" group to openly call for a government monopoly on force. Now, though, it seems as if even that's not enough. Not only do they want a government monopoly on force, but it must be a federal government monopoly.
That's been tried before, and didn't work out particularly well for those who sought the monopoly.
I hope Florida does the same. We will need it when the final collapse of the Federal Ponzi happens.
Apparently, the CGSV doesn’t keep up with the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States...
Isn't there just one militia here in the USA?
Article 1 Section 8 is singular: "... for calling forth the Militia..."
Article 2 Section 2 is singular: "... and of the Militia of the several States,..."
And, Amdt 2: "A well regulated Militia,..."
That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, ... every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock....
Twenty-six states have an organized militia, paid for by the state. And no, it’s not the state national guard. The state calls them up in emergencies. The state pays militia members when activated.
I’m sure someone has used this before.....But, this is my first time seeing it (be gentle with me)......”Federal Ponzi” is spot on.
Well it is. Legal Ponzi scheme.
Local Militia’s are very essential.
When hell breaks loose following an economic collapse or natural disaster, there will be NO local law enforcement nor a national guard to protect citizens.
Hurricane Katrina is a prime example.
LEO’s along with the guard will be too busy protecting their OWN families or the VERY well off to be bothered with the rest of us,especially the more economically depressed area’s.
We will be on our own.
Creating a local group of organized armed people to protect their neighborhoods in the event is just plain common sense.
... like wolves hate sheepdogs.
It would be a great idea here in Florida. I would support it as long as the forming of a militia was not coincident with any claim that not being in a militia denied gun rights.
At the risk of attracting the attention of the Bureau of alcohol tobacco firearms I would like to point out that we are well beyond the point in time that this article assumes. I have personally seen government employees talk and act as if Obama care had not been found to be unconstitutional and completely vacated by two federal judges. Our country is already well into a period of lawlessness on the part of the government. We are now at the place in time many of us have been preparing for. What the gumming does now in regard to gun control is irrelevant. Anyone who would want the things they would ban already has them. If they want to try to take them away, well good luck.
Hey, wait; it is unconstitutional to require a citizen to buy something, isn't it (health insurance fiasco)?
It doesn’t say buy, it says provide. I know that there’s not much difference to us today, but there is a subtle difference.
You don’t have to buy a gun, you can trade or barter for one or you could even borrow one from your neighbor. You can’t do that with health insurance.
Going from regulated to agitated takes awile. Agitated does now appear visible on the horizon.
Every state in the Union has at least one militia. Some states have multiple militias. It is an essetial element of freedom.
Will he get fined for not "...providing himself with a good musket..."?
>>...every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock...
>Hey, wait; it is unconstitutional to require a citizen to buy something, isn’t it (health insurance fiasco)?
Two problems with likening the two:
1 — ObamaCare has been attempted to be justified only by the Interstate Commerce clause and demands the purchase of insurance which, ironically, is prohibited from being sold across state lines by federal law; whereas the Constitution specifically mentions arming the militia.
2 — The phrase “provide himself with” means that he could, if sufficiently skilled, manufacture the required items himself.
Or, obtain one from an ambushed, dead Redcoat?
Considering that Act was passed by the Second Congress, I don’t think that would be valid:
1 — There would be a lack of redcoats, and
2 — As no state of war existed at the time then, unless the obtaining were done in a case of self-defense, it would be theft or murder to do so.
(Shamelessly borrowing from the US Army) I am a militia of one!
Not at all. Every state has the right to raise one, or organize one.
Militia is a word that is both singular and plural with no change in spelling or pronunciation, like deer, moose, or aircraft. The use of an "s" to pluralize it is a product of ignorant journalists edjumicaytid in bublik skewlz.
By saying "The militia of the SEVERAL states" it is obvious that there is more than one militia and state involved, since each state has its own. Otherwise, it would read "*A* militia of (or from) the several..."
Good try, though.
I was steering towards the original thinking that every male, 17 - 45 yo, was "militia"... the only question was whether he had purchased his good musket or flintlock, or for some reason was putting it off for awhile.
You mean “hated”...
One of the untold stories about the Schindler Jews was the fact that even when they were working for the Nazi’s, they were armed...
At least that is what I recall hearing about them...
And a little snippet out of “Unintended Consequences”...The Jews did some remarkable things against an armed force by little stings on the beast until they had a sizable force to deal with, and the Germans had a hard time quelling that little insurrection...
Seems to me right now that the Jewish state is quite capable of defending itself from most antagonists these days...
But that is just what I see...
Many of them (gun grabbers) then go on to say that today's militia is the National Guard,
Wrong answer Gun Grabbers.
When the National Guard was established by Congress. It was written into 'the Act', that the NG does NOT replace the 'Militia' mentioned in the 2A.
And this was long before any 'DoD' existed, or ties into that lawsuit mentioned in the article.