|
jlf1961 -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/15/2017 8:28:45 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Drakvampire
I thought all Governments, to slight extents or dangerous precedents, suppressed their citizens plebs unruly mobs from my perspective - in the batty cat cave.
To recap it says exactly this:
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.
Can someone explain what is meant by:
Militia
Well regulated Militia
And why they are relevant in this day and age – why not hark back to the 10 Commandments then?
Did anyone come up with a viable alternative to the 2nd?
Under United States law, 10 U.S Code, subsection 246- Militia composition and classes
(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.
However, there is also another law, 32 U.S Code, subsection 109- Maintenance of other troops
(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.
Those two laws, specifically, address the 2nd amendment and its modern meaning:
From title 10:
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
That gives the governor of each state, the right to call up volunteers to support state and local law enforcement in time of crisis, which falls under the powers of the state under the 10th amendment.
Which, by the way, makes ever citizen in the United States who is not a member of the US active duty military or any reserve component, a member of the unorganized militia.
Furthermore, the states also have the right, under the constitution, to maintain a State Defense force, as detailed in 32 U.S Code, subsection 109
(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.
There is a bit of a side debate that is rarely spoken of on the issue of private gun ownership, which is that there is an unspoken law that requires all Americans to own at least one long arm (rifle) stemming from the requirement by colonial governments for all 'white adult men to possess firearms and ammunition,' and being subject to fines for failing to do so.
Some colonies required the weapons to be stored at home, while others would actually levy fines for failing to bring them to church on Sunday in order to prove compliance with the laws.
Read it for yourself here.
After the formation of the United States, and during its westward expansion, some states went so far as to require gun ownership, with exceptions due to religious belief, to provide for protection against Indian raids, and the outlaws that roamed the country.
In western states, laws were passed that required people who traveled by horseback on any trip that could not be completed in one day, to carry one pistol, a rifle and a minimum amount of ammunition and powder that varied by state or territory, for self defense in case one stumbled upon a raiding band of Indians or outlaws.
And of course, in times of crisis, all citizens of a town were required to aid in the defense of the town in the event of an indian raid.
Now, while the last Indian war ended in the early 20th century, the need to defend a town still exists, as made clear during the riots following the Rodney King beating verdicts, as noted in an earlier post, where Korean business owners defended their property, or whole strip malls from loiters.
Technically, in doing so, these business owners became members of the unorganized militia, even though they were not specifically asked to volunteer by the Governor of California.
And their actions were perfectly legal under the two statutes quoted.
The same is true during the Whitman incident on the University of Texas in 1966. Civilians responded by returning fire, often using rifles more powerful than the standard issue for Austin police, and managed to keep Whitman pinned down while one officer managed to gain entrance to the tower building and eventually killed Charles Whitman.
While an armed civilian population is frowned on by some in the US as needless, and condemned by people outside the US, there have been incidents where, the armed public supplemented and aided law enforcement personnel or acted legally in the absence of such personnel.
This has occurred even in more recent American history during the riots in Ferguson MO. and in Baltimore MD. although not nearly as thoroughly documented as LA in 92.
In all instances, armed civilians reacted to preserve life, property and did so legally.
|
|
|
|
