|
jlf1961 -> RE: Political topics that we can support (3/4/2017 6:49:51 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
The 1792 Act was replaced by the Army Acts of 1903, 1916, and 1920. While the unorganized militia was retained it is no longer clearly defined. One reason for replacement of the 1792 Act was that the militia of Vermont and New York refused to participate in the War of 1812. If you wish to rely on the defunct Law of 1792 you would have to admit that arms-bearing rights disappear for 45 year old men and for females of every age. but it is a moot point. The unreliability of the militia were a serious concern and was just one factor in their uselessness.
Vincent, per:
quote:
10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
(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.
32 U.S. Code § 109 - Maintenance of other troops
US Code
(a) In time of peace, a State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands may maintain no troops other than those of its National Guard and defense forces authorized by subsection (c).
(b) Nothing in this title limits the right of a State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands to use its National Guard or its defense forces authorized by subsection (c) within its borders in time of peace, or prevents it from organizing and maintaining police or constabulary.
(c) In addition to its National Guard, if any, a State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands may, as provided by its laws, organize and maintain defense forces. A defense force established under this section may be used within the jurisdiction concerned, as its chief executive (or commanding general in the case of the District of Columbia) considers necessary, but it may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces.
(d) A member of a defense force established under subsection (c) is not, because of that membership, exempt from service in the armed forces, nor is he entitled to pay, allowances, subsistence, transportation, or medical care or treatment, from funds of the United States.
(e) A person may not become a member of a defense force established under subsection (c) if he is a member of a reserve component of the armed forces.
Now, under 32 U.S. Code, the governor of any state, territory or the commanding general of the District of Columbia, at his discretion, issue a call for volunteers for the state defense force, otherwise known as an unorganized militia.
Members of the state militia must, by law, provide their own weapons and uniforms, and can expect only ammo from the state.
Now, since State, County and City law enforcement agencies use the civilian .223 and .308 rounds as a rule, then the AR15 style rifles chambered for these rounds would be perfectly constitutional and there fore, an out right ban on these weapons makes no sense, hence the temporary assault weapon ban that was passed and never renewed was not unconstitutional.
Of course, they do legally sell these style weapons chambered for 5.56 and 7.62 NATO rounds which also makes sense.
And while 308 and 7.62 are similar, they are not the same round. There is a difference in the head spacing of the brass, which makes using the different rounds problematic in a weapon chambered for one or the other.
So your assertions that the militia, as envisioned at the writing of the constitution and the amendments, is no longer valid, is wrong both by the amendment itself and the Federal Code.
Now as to the reasons that civilians do not go out and buy F16's etc is purely financial. Even the stripped export model costs tens of millions per copy, and those that have been retired from active military service and sent to the boneyard in Arizona are barely flyable due to the long hours on the air frame. You see, metal fatigues over the years of service, and in the case of military fighter jets, the area that shows the most fatigue are the wing spars (the things that hold the wings to the aircraft) and should those fail catastrophically in flight, the wings sorta become independent of the rest of the aircraft and the whole thing tends to fall to the ground, which would ruin the pilot's day.
While it is possible to cobble together a flyable aircraft from the parts of several, the process is long, tedious and costly. The process basically involves stripping the aircraft of all skin, testing each part of the ribs of the air frame, and then putting the thing back together.
And of course the National Firearms Act limits the number of full auto weapons available to civilians, and requires a $200 transfer tax (among other costs.)
And as far as a bunch of civilian irregulars facing up against the might of the US Military, while true in one sense, there are some considerations that none of the 'anti gun' mob seem to have considered, and all dealing with the oath that a service man takes upon enlistment.
quote:
"I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
You may wish to note what is the first part, I helped by placing that in bold.
An officer or enlisted person are only required by the UCMJ to follow 'legal' orders, or those orders which are constitutional and legal under both the UCMJ and the International Laws.
In other words, as proven in the case of Lt. William Calley, who was following orders, yet was still court-martialed in the famous My Lai massacre. because the orders were not constitutional.
The argument that a service man does not have the option to chose what orders he/she will or will not follow is thus false. Each member of the armed forces is required to weigh every order against what he has been trained to understand as lawful orders.
Which means, that if a president was to suspend the constitution, or take any action which is not within his power, directed at restricting or suspending the rights of the citizens of the United States, every officer and enlisted person in the military are sworn to not follow those orders.
While it is true many would follow such directives, enough would not, thus making the use of Federal troops against civilians a costly mistake. If the troops did not resign or desert en masse, there is the very real chance that whole units would, taking their equipment with them, leave the command of those officers who chose to follow such an unconstitutional order.
So the armed resistance to such a move on the part of the president would have more than a mob of untrained civilians opposing it.
|
|
|
|
