The need for a civilian militia....

That was obviously to arm a well regulated militia, a military fighting force, as envisioned in the 2A. The statute is replete with regulation on the organization, structure, command and discipline for the militia. Some examples:

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, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved.

That within one year after the passing of the Act, the militia of the respective states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct; and each division, brigade, and regiment, shall be numbered at the formation thereof; and a record made of such numbers of the Adjutant-General's office in the state; and when in the field, or in serviced in the state, such division, brigade, and regiment shall, respectively, take rank according to their numbers, reckoning the first and lowest number highest in rank. That if the same be convenient, each brigade shall consist of four regiments; each regiment or two battalions; each battalion of five companies; each company of sixty-four privates. That the said militia shall be officered by the respective states, as follows: To each division on Major-General, with two Aids-de-camp, with the rank of major; to each brigade, one brigadier-major, with the rank of a major; to each company, one captain, one lieutenant, one ensign, four serjeants, four corporals, one drummer, and one fifer and bugler. That there shall be a regimental staff, to consist of one adjutant, and one quartermaster, to rank as lieutenants; one paymaster; one surgeon, and one surgeon's mate; one serjeant-major; one drum- major, and one fife-major.

That there shall be an adjutant general appointed in each state, whose duty it shall be to distribute all orders for the Commander in Chief of the State to the several corps; to attend all publick reviews, when the Commander in Chief of the State shall review the militia, or any part thereof; to obey all orders from him relative to carrying into execution, and perfecting, the system of military discipline established by this Act; to furnish blank forms of different returns that may be required; and to explain the principles of which they should be made; to receive from the several officers of the different corps throughout the state, returns of the militia under their command, reporting the actual situation of their arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, their delinquencies, and every other thing which relates to the general advancement of good order and discipline: All which, the several officers of the division, brigades, regiments, and battalions are hereby required to make in the usual manner, so that the said adjutant general may be duly furnished therewith: From all which returns be shall make proper abstracts, and by the same annually before the Commander in Chief of the State.

That act has been repealed and we have no well regulated militia of that sort.

Where did the statute say anything about cannon?

Conservatives somehow imagine history like this.

Revolutionary soldier: "General Washington Sir, Congress abolished the militia, and we have just developed a self-loading machine gun that can fire 3000 rounds per minute, and shoulder fired missiles that can cause the damage of 2 score cannon with pinpoint accuracy, and rocket powered grenade launchers that can wipe out an entire battalian single handedly.

General Washington: "Great! Give them to any nut who wants them."

 

...

It is you who are erroneous.

The National Guard's charter is found in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution which contains a series of "militia clauses,"

I suggest you read those and understand the intent of the authors of said document.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 provides that the Congress has three constitutional grounds for calling up the militia -- "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions." All three standards appear to be applicable only to the Territory of the United States.

Article I, Section 8; Clause 16
Congress may "organize, arm and discipline" the militia; the States may "establish… appoint the officers of… and train the militia." Also, limits Congress' power during peacetime. That same clause specifically reserves to the States the authority to establish a state-based militia, to appoint the officers and to train the militia according to the discipline prescribed by the Congress. As written, the clause seeks to limit federal power over State militias during peacetime.

Article I, Section 10
"No state may keep troops… without the consent of Congress." no state, without the consent of the Congress, shall keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, or engage in war unless actually invaded.

Article I, Section 10 is tantamount to this discussion because the 2nd Amendment was a reaction to this. The 2nd Amendment was included by the anti-Federalist States so as to qualify Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution as it relates to disarming State militias.

The Constitution grants no authority or rights to any para-military "milita" that was not specfically granted charter by Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

 

Still not a quote or indication of the Founders intent

 

Agree 100% Pure judicial activism, of the type that Scalia and conservatives claim to abhor. But it's OK when they do it.

 

Which is refuted by the exact wording of the Militia Act of 1791 written, debated and passed by those same Founders

Your view of the Militia is not supported by the language of anyone who was writing at the time. I am still waiting for your quotes on the issue.

 

How does it "refute" it? A repealed act of Congress doesn't refute a constitutional amendment.

How is my view not supported? the 1792 Militia act directly supports my view of the "well regulated" militia referred to in the 2A.

 

In 1775 the Revolution was started by a Government intent on removing that legal right. They marched right out of Boston toward Concord on a gun grabbing expedition. In 1789 those same Founders wrote an amendment to insure no government ever did it again. They provided an individual right to the people to keep their own arms, a right that was codified and defined in Federal Law in the Militia Act. You can not find a single quote from a founder who supports your view.

 

When they do it they base their actions on actual history and original intent. You base your views on pure wishful thinking.

- - - Updated - - -

The Militia Act was enabling legislation and defined the militia. In addition, it served as the guide for every state legislature writing their own state militia organizations.

 

Putting aside your biased view of history, for the reason, they stated explicitly, that they deemed a well regulated militia was necessary to a free state.

You cannot quote a from a founder who says anything about possessing semi or fully automatic weapons, RPGs, and shoulder filed SAMs when there is not well regulated militia.

 

Now I'll quote you: "Still not a quote or indication of the Founders intent"

That supports my view 100%.

Able bodied men were required to have their muskets to equip a well regulated militia, completely consistent with the 2A.

 

That is a logic flaw and a strawman as I have not argued that any of those weapons are protected, just that arms in common use by the citizens are.

Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill (1790):
[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.

 

Fair enough, though many pro-gun folks take the position that the 2A provides they right to have things like automatic weapons, which was the subject of my post #126 you jumped in on.

Good for him. If he were dictator and was solely responsible for the 2A his views would have some import.

 

I think you basically get it. "Well regulated" means a well disciplined, well led, fed and organized fighting force. This does not mean "Well regulated gun control" as there was no gun control as it is known today back 200 years ago.

The 2nd amend has not been repealed except by Leftist democrats in their own areas. The Milita Act just proves the Founders ideas on guns and militias.

As far as cannon:

IV. And be it further enacted, That out of the militia enrolled as is herein directed, there shall be formed for each battalion, as least one company of grenadiers, light infantry or riflemen; and that each division there shall be, at least, one company of artillery, and one troop of horse: There shall be to each company of artillery, one captain, two lieutenants, four serjeants, four corporals, six gunners, six bombardiers, one drummer, and one fifer. The officers to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt, with a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private of matoss shall furnish themselves with good horses of at least fourteen hands and an half high, and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols, the holsters of which to be covered with bearskin caps. Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols. That each company of artillery and troop of house shall be formed of volunteers from the brigade, at the discretion of the Commander in Chief of the State, not exceeding one company of each to a regiment, nor more in number than one eleventh part of the infantry, and shall be uniformly clothed in raiments, to be furnished at their expense, the colour and fashion to be ..

The Founders allowed for individual citizens to own cannon--but did not require equipment that was rare, cumbersome or expensive.

In fact, anyone could have most technically advanced weapon of the time: a warship with as many cannon as it could hold. Back then, if you misused your weapons, like using a warship for piracy, or armed yourself with guns and hatchets to harm others---you were quickly hung.

Today, Obama's most loyal supporters, the inner city ghetto-dwellers, are very tolerant and protective of their criminal street and prison gangs. They could care less about controlling the gangs, but think that controlling guns will somehow be the answer.

 

They didn't need it. There is only so much mass destruction a nut can do with a flintlock musket; and since they had a well regulated militia, the ownership and care of the weapon were subject to the regulations of the militia.

I'm not aware of any leftist thinks its been repealed.

It provides their ideas on a well regulated militia.

As far as cannon:

OK, I missed the part on artillery.

I don't see where it says that. It says that there shall be a company of artillery. It doesn't say that private citizens are to provide and own the cannon, unlike a musket or rifle, that the statute specifically provides.

Merchantmen of the day needed the cannon for defense from pirates.

Proof, please.

 

I can produce quotes from scores of folk supporting my position. You cannot find even one...

“to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer) - Richard Henry Lee

 

Since they didn't have machine guns, RPGs and shoulder fired SAMs in 1790 that is not surprising, and in fact proves my point.

What was his view about the people possessing machine guns, RPGs and shoulder fired SAMs?

 

Not good at multi-quotes, but:

The courts with I think the Miller case thought:

See page 52 and 53 of the court document:

"weapons that were in common circulation and that individual men would
be able to employ, such as muskets, rifles, pistols, sabres, hangers,
etc., but not cumbersome, expensive, or rare equipment such as cannons."

But just because the Founders didn't force individuals to have large destructive devices like cannons, didn't mean they wanted them banned.

Again, no proof of gun or cannon control laws. Just criminal control laws.

If I were running a ship in pirate infested waters, I'd want a cannon as well. Only I'd want a Vulcan 20mm cannon with exploding rounds on my merchant ship.

One other note, how is the word "infringe" any different now than it was back in 1789?

 

You have not made a point...you speak of classes of weapons that did not exist and that few claim are covered and then pretend, as those weapons were not discussed, the types that were were also not covered...It is as silly as saying the 4th amendment does not protect electronic records or that any media requiring electricity as they did not discuss electronic broadcasting.

That is your strawman separate to any real constitutional debate....

 

Not much. If you strip out the "well regulated militia" part and use "arms" in its common meaingin, it's hard to see how you could say the 2A doesn't protect to things like machine guns, RPGs, shoulder fired missiles, and the like as they are "arms" that a military unit would use. If you wanted to take the analogy further and say the 2A included the most devastating weapons, you'd have to say the 2A protects the right to private ownership of nukes.

Which is why Scalia opted for judicial activism to change the 2A to his liking as opposed to a literally accurate meaning of the language.

 

I made my point in the post to which you responded. The founders did not contemplate things like machine guns, RPGs and shoulder fired missiles when they passed the 2A and it is nothing more than speculation to divine what they would do with them.

You have provided nothing to refute it.

How is it a strawman, in your view?

 

That implies that I/someone has made a serious claim that such things are protected. I have not. I have simply proven that weapons classes in common use were and are. The court agrees and you cannot provide any quotes from the founders to support your view while the record is full of quotes and legislation that supports me.

 

The argument is very cut & dry. The Constitution, with regards to the militia, defines it as ordinary citizens with their own personal weapons...muskets and rifles during the era the document was authored...assemble as a unified and organized fighting force under the control of Congress and/or a State. The 2nd Amendment was included to prevent the Federal Government disarming citizens who belong to a State chartered militia.

Amendment II

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.

The fact is, this is the intent of the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms applied to being part of an organized and regulated State militia...what we now regard as the National Guard of each respective State. The farmer in the field would grab his musket. In the modern Guard, a citizen-soldier is issued a weapon.

The same basic principle applies however.

The Court's are afraid to interpret the 2nd Amendment exactly as it should be, because the genie is already out of the bottle. There are 250 million firearms floating around out there and it would be nearly impossible to confiscate them all....but in terms of a Constitutionally protected right to own a firearm, it was written with a citizen-soldier in mind who belongs to a State organized militia. The State organized militia of this era used their own weapons.

It could be argued the right of citizens to own a firearm is implied, that's a legitimate argument, even without the 2nd Amendment, however the specificities of the 2nd Amendment relate to the Federal Government being allowed to disarm a State militia...the 2nd Amendment prevents this...tha'ts why it was incorporated into the Bill of Rights; by anti-Federalist States.

 

Good for you. You jumped in on post #126, in which I wrote about the founders' views on machine guns directly in response to a post that argued the founders were in favor of people having automatic weapons:

You've already conceded that the founders did not envision people having RPGs and automatic weapons, which was my point. If you weren't taking issue with what I wrote and defending the principle that founders intended people to have automatic weapons, what was the purpose of your posts?

 

That is nonsense...the National Guard did not exist until the 20th century and the4 clear language of the establishment denies such an interpretation. The intent was for folk to be armed with their own weapons and available for call up to a militia...It had zip to do with the national Guard.

In fact that entire 'collective right' came from Law Universities in the early 20th century and was never, ever proposed by the Founders.

 

You are clueless...
The Army National Guard predates the founding of the nation and a standing military by almost a century and a half - and is therefore the oldest component of the United States armed forces. America's first permanent militia regiments, among the oldest continuing units in history, were organized by the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636. Since that time, the Guard has participated in every U.S. conflict from the Pequot War of 1637 to our current deployments in support of Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq).

Today's National Guard is the direct descendent of the militias of the thirteen original English colonies. The first English settlers brought many cultural influences and English military ideas with them. For most of its history, England had no full-time, professional Army. The English had relied on a militia of citizen-soldiers who had the obligation to assist in national defense.