2nd Amendment
#51
12-11-2006, 04:14 AM
Reedeemed: No offense, but I don't know WHERE you come up with the idea that this is a "myth." If it is.... it is NEWS to the President who recently slipped in some legislation to give him more authority than he originally had, specifically the right to call up the guard for natural disasters.
It is also NEWS to congress who held debates on approving the legislation. And it certainly is NEWS to the 51 governors who opposed the legislation. It is also NEWS to the Nat. Guard Bureau, which traces its charter to Article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution. I think you are confusing the Federal obligation to FUND and organize the Guard, with the AUTHORITY over it. The Governor is the CIC of his state guard, and the State's Legislature must authorize even HIM to call it up. Regardless of the court ruling you cited, which was an "interpretation" of the laws, and specifically settled the issue of base closings, the Executive branch of the U.S., has very limited authority over the USE of the guard units. They won the case over base closings, because THEY fund the guard for the most part. To the extent that Bush can sneak through more empowerment for himself, only speaks volumes to his underhanded methods, and his desire to continue fighting wars without having to shoulder the blame for re-instituting the "draft." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/us...artner=rssnyt&
LOS ANGELES, Aug. 14 — In an unusual act of bipartisan and regional unanimity, 51 governors have joined to voice their strong opposition to legislation to let the president federalize National Guard troops in a disaster without local authorities’ consent.
In a letter to Congressional leaders last week, the governors detailed their argument that the measure, drawn up after Hurricane Katrina and tucked into a military authorization bill that the House recently passed, would undermine their authority and autonomy. “This provision was drafted without consultation or input from governors,” read the letter, conceived in large part by Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, a Republican, “and represents an unprecedented shift in authority from governors as Commanders and Chief of the Guard to the federal government. This link to the 1792 Act, relates to what YOU say about the militia, but you'll note that we as citizens are NO LONGER required by this Act to own arms and ammunition. Therefore, and for other reasons and interpretations of this Act, we are no longer the "militia." I have neither been "organized" or "informed" of my duty, requirements for armament, or my command structure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903
The Bureau was known as the Militia Bureau until it was designated as the National Guard Bureau by an amendment to Section 81 of the National Defense Act on June 15, 1933. Furthermore, this amendment worked towards settling the issue of the National Guard as a reserve component. It stated that there would be two National Guards: the National Guard of the several States, and the National Guard of the United States. The former would be the individual State militias, employed in local emergencies and national defense. The latter would be a deployable reserve component of the Army.
The National Guard Bureau was established primarily as an "organizational" branch of the U.S. Military for the purpose of setting and maintaining "standards" of training and armament within the State's "militias" so that they would be effective IF and WHEN called upon for National service. They provide mostly administrative functions (as well as funding accountability) and act as a liason with the States. They are comprised of about 400 employees. http://www.ngb.army.mil/About/default.aspx I forgot to save the link concerning the specific legislation recently passed in Congress that was objected to, but you can google National Guard and Authority to find many articles about it. I repeat... the President would NOT have needed to insert such legislation, nor would it have needed to be "legislated," IF he already HAD such authority over the Guard.
__________________
Remember... friends are few and far between. TRUCKIN' AIN'T FOR WUSSES!!! "I am willing to admit that I was wrong." The Rev.
#52
12-11-2006, 04:53 AM
Thank you golfhobo for the information. I am going to study over the links and get back to you. However, some initial points to make.
First, you kinda help make my point for me about the National Guard when you say that it is only the Federal obligation to fund it. The ability of the central government to handle the purse strings of the "militia" in and of itself is tremendous central power that the founders would have never stood for or intended. Second, while the President threw in that little bit of legislation to call up the guard during national disasters (really a swipe at the governor of LA for her lack of leadership and organization during the Katrina disaster) he has had that ability to call up the Guard for any reason to do with national defense at any time (with that definition being at his discretion). This snipit from the story says as much.....
Although the president already has the authority to call up any branch of the reserves into involuntary service in the case of a terrorist attack overseas or the use of unconventional weapons, that power does not extend to natural or man-made disasters.
The bill in Congress would extend the president’s power to such disasters. And you just can't throw off the rulings of the Supreme Court as just interpretations of the law to do with base closings. I used the base closings as one example but the case law I cited precedes even that issue. When the Supreme Court says that the term "the people" means the same in all the Amendments as it does in the 2nd, that is very powerful. I am sure that in your definition the meaning of "the people" does not just mean the National Guard for protections from things such as illegal search and due process. That is why I said it is very important to understand the terms as have already been defined in law. Clearly it says two things, first the National Guard is NOT the "militia," and second and as back up to the first, the 2nd Amendment is just as much an individual right to the entire body politic, not just members of the National Guard, as the right to free speech, assembly, and religion. Because of the ambiguities caused by nearly 100 years of contradictory law and executive orders I say the best thing is to have a Constitutional Amendment to clarify the Second Amendment. Let's put up a proposal that clearly defines constitutionally what is the "militia" and what is meant by "the people." Then and only then will this debate be settled.
#53
12-11-2006, 05:18 AM
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Dancing with the bright Pixies at University of Edinburgh
Posts: 2,575
Originally Posted by golfhobo
You cannot rewrite the Bill of Rights. You cannot change the English language. Only WOT and that Scottish dude can do that! :lol: Nite! You can argue over grammar and syntax all day :lol: :lol:
__________________
 Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
#54
12-11-2006, 07:02 AM
Some of you questioned this statement:
A tactical nuke can be fired from a grenade launcher, or a shoulder mounted AA type weapon. These are "individual handheld weapons." So, again I ask, where would you draw the line?
The word "can" that I used, was meant to show "possibility." More importantly, it was perhaps a rhetorical question meant to make you think of the overall delineation between what you CAN own, and what you SHOULD own. Besides... the 2nd Ammendment doesn't specify SMALL Arms. It says "Arms." Do you have the right to own a howitzer with tactical nuke shells? Or a Cessna with tactical nukes on it? Heck.... you can't even own certain types of ammunition! I've NEVER contended that the 2nd Amdmt doesn't allow you "the people" to own guns. But, I most certainly believe that the gov't reserves the right to "infringe" on that right where certain weapons are concernced, or to put restrictions such as "registering them" on you. Get USED to it! http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1744527/posts
American Hiroshima?
Even as strategists look to the future, armed forces must not lose sight of the threats of the moment, and they do not come for the most part from traditional militaries. They come largely from terrorist groups—some with state sponsorship, others without—that use the fruits of modern military technology to their perverse advantage. “Irregular” attacks carried out by tribes, clans, or other non-state actors are as old as warfare itself; they long predate the development of modern armed forces and the nation-state. The religious fanaticism which animates so many of today’s terrorists and guerrillas is equally ancient. But technological advances have made such attacks far more potent than in the distant past. The progeny of the second industrial revolution—assault rifles, machine guns, mortars, rocket launchers, landmines, explosives—long ago spread to the remotest corners of the globe. Fighters who a century ago might have made do with swords and muskets now have access to cheap and reliable weapons such as the AK-47 capable of spewing out 100 bullets a minute. More advanced technologies, from handheld missiles to chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, give even a small group of insurgents the ability or potential ability to mete out far more destruction than entire armies could unleash just a century ago. And thanks to modern transportation and communications infrastructure—such as jumbo jets, the Internet, and cell phones—insurgents have the capability to carry out their attacks virtually anywhere in the world. September 11 showed the terrifying possibilities of such unconventional warfare. It is easy to imagine that in the future super-terrorists will be able to kill hundreds of thousands, even millions, with effective weapons of mass destruction. All of the materials, as well as the know-how needed to craft such devices, are all too readily available. The proliferation of nuclear weapons has the greatest ability to trump U.S. military hegemony. The atomic bomb is more than sixty years old. It belongs to an age of rotary-dial telephones and fin-winged cars. It is a miracle that it has not been used by maniac dictators or political radicals since 1945, but that streak won’t last forever. And while information age technology offers a reasonable chance of stopping a nuclear-tipped missile, there is much less probability of stopping a terrorist with a nuclear suitcase. There is little in theory to prevent al Qaeda from carrying out its oft-expressed desire to create an “American Hiroshima.” In the words of Eugene Habiger, a retired four-star general who once ran antinuclear terror programs for the Department of Energy, “it is not a matter of if; it’s a matter of when.”
__________________
Remember... friends are few and far between. TRUCKIN' AIN'T FOR WUSSES!!! "I am willing to admit that I was wrong." The Rev.
#55
12-11-2006, 07:11 AM
First it depends on the definition of the word "is" is, now it's the definition of the work "can." What is up with you democrats and the definition of words. "Militia" is every able bodied man between certain ages. "Arms" are military small arms. "Keep and Bear" means you can posses them outside of military service and "Shall not infringe" means keep you freaking hands of my guns. What can be more simple?
__________________
Terry L. Davis O/O with own authority
#56
12-11-2006, 07:53 AM
Reedeemed:
First, you kinda help make my point for me about the National Guard when you say that it is only the Federal obligation to fund it. The ability of the central government to handle the purse strings of the "militia" in and of itself is tremendous central power that the founders would have never stood for or intended.
Second, while the President threw in that little bit of legislation to call up the guard during national disasters (really a swipe at the governor of LA for her lack of leadership and organization during the Katrina disaster) he has had that ability to call up the Guard for any reason to do with national defense at any time (with that definition being at his discretion). This snipit from the story says as much....
So again, the ability going back to what the founders intended, the ability for the Executive Branch to have the power to take control of the "militia" is more than they would have allowed. Even in the story, from the quote above, the National Guard is referenced as part of a branch of the reserves, not its independant orgaization with leaders of its own choosing as the "militia" is defined.
Therefore, the forefathers can no longer require me to be "identified, organized or commanded" by any State or Federal Officer.... and I am no longer REQUIRED to arm myself and keep a certain amount of ammunition. Because.... I am NOT part of the State Militia. Yes.... I am part of "the people" and as such have the RIGHT to bear arms. My point is.... that this right CAN be infringed, because the 2nd Ammendment was based on the need for a militia, and that need is satisfied by the guard. And that those who defend their right to bear arms SOLELY on the 2nd Ammendment, are not facing the realities of the situation. Now... I might agree with you that the Ammendment should be "ammended" for clarification.... but I guarantee that if it is.... the PEOPLE will be further restricted, as they are no longer part of the Militia as intended by our forefathers. In fact... I am quite sure that it is time for another Constitutional Convention to clarify the WHOLE bloody thing! (including the 9th Ammendment!) as well as the Fourth!
__________________
Remember... friends are few and far between. TRUCKIN' AIN'T FOR WUSSES!!! "I am willing to admit that I was wrong." The Rev.
#57
12-11-2006, 08:06 AM
Originally Posted by terrylamar
First it depends on the definition of the word "is" is, now it's the definition of the word "can." What is up with you democrats and the definition of words. "Militia" is every able bodied man between certain ages. "Arms" are military small arms. "Keep and Bear" means you can posses them outside of military service and "Shall not infringe" means keep you freaking hands off my guns. What can be more simple?
Arms: Weapons. See ALSO "small arms." Can: The ABILITY to... Militia: Any army composed of citizens, rather than "professional" soldiers, to be called up in times of emergency. The National Guardsmen are NOT professional soldiers. They are "citizen soldiers" who earn their main income from OTHER jobs. If we weren't in a so-called "war" (look up the definition) they'd be AT HOME with their families, training one weekend a month, and living CIVILIAN lives. Since we ARE in a time of emergency.... they are called up. Therefore THEY (and not I) fit the definition of militia. I have not been "called up." I cannot be FORCED to be armed and maintain 4 boxes of ammunition. What part of "is" don't you understand?? :lol:
__________________
Remember... friends are few and far between. TRUCKIN' AIN'T FOR WUSSES!!! "I am willing to admit that I was wrong." The Rev.
#58
12-11-2006, 08:08 AM
In this case the definitions mean alot because due to the passage of time meanings change.
I agree with you completely on the term "militia." Unfortunately, golfhobo is right that the modern day militia is for all purposes the National Guard. The laws that govern and define a "militia" are still on the books but its just that we have not exercised those rights and laws. How many "militia's" are currently active and meeting as prescribed by the laws? My guess is none. I know that in my state we do have a State Guard. But for the life of me I do not know what they do and have only seen one news story about them in 10 years. My beef is with those who want to make "militia" and "National Guard" interchangeable in the Bill of Rights (specifically the 2nd Amendment). They are not interchangeable in the Bill of Rights and can never be. The "militia" our forefathers write about is a completely different group than the National Guard (For one thing the National Guard came to being after the Spanish American War. That is a long time after the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.). They meant it to be because they were afraid of a strong central government with access to a large standing army to take away the rights of the individual. The National Guard, no matter how you slice it, is a reserve component of the standing armed forces of the US. So it can not be considered the militia the founders were trying to describe. If the term "militia" is ever legally defined as the National Guard (defined that by the Supreme Court) then you can forget forever that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.
#59
12-11-2006, 08:46 AM
Reedeemed said:
The "militia" our forefathers write about is a completely different group than the National Guard (For one thing the National Guard came to being after the Spanish American War. That is a long time before the writing of the the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.).
Therefore, ALL references to the Militia by our forefathers were WAY before the said War. The guard was "established" following the war, and pursuant to the Militia Act of 1903. There is NO DOUBT, that the Militia Act of 1903 is the "superceding" document that "reorganized" the State's Militias into the National Guard. Laws ARE changed, ammended, re-interpreted from time to time. An ammendment is NOT always deemed necessary to further "clarify" the Constitution. I don't know how much more I can say to convince y'all. Remember a few years ago when certain "militias" in Idaho or thereabouts were "suppressed" by guard units from their own states? Are you aware of the Posse Commitatus law? Says the Pres cannot use Federal forces to enact police functions. Obviously, you are aware of the Bush dodge to the Katrina response? NOT MY JOB, MAN! I don't control the State's Guard units! I'm just as proud of our forefathers as the rest of you. But, there vision was limited to their experience. LAWS have been passed with the evolution of society that have superceded these concerns and declarations. Your "people's rights" to own arms IS still protected by the Constitution... but with restrictions of NEW laws enacted. And ANY argument to the contrary based on the "mention" of the militia in the 2nd Ammendment WILL fall on deaf ears! I don't know how to say it any plainer. It's NOT about syntax. It's about Legal precedent, interpretations of the law, and redefinition of our rights by recent legislation. And THAT is why I caution you against surrendering your 4th Ammendment rights, as well as your 1st, 9th and 10th Ammendment rights.
__________________
Remember... friends are few and far between. TRUCKIN' AIN'T FOR WUSSES!!! "I am willing to admit that I was wrong." The Rev.
#60
12-11-2006, 08:54 AM
Originally Posted by golfhobo
Reedeemed:
First, you kinda help make my point for me about the National Guard when you say that it is only the Federal obligation to fund it. The ability of the central government to handle the purse strings of the "militia" in and of itself is tremendous central power that the founders would have never stood for or intended.
But, by the very nature of all the obligations...funding, training, arming, standards, and discipline.....the National Guard has become Federalized and fails to fit the definition of the militia our forefathers intended. True that Federalization was allowed with the earliy militia, but as time has gone on it has become easier and easier for that Federalization to take place. The article you cited earlier is a prime example of greater Federalization of a which the founders tried to prevent. Reading through the link you provided it was not an easy process to call up the militia. The President basically went to the states with hat in hand asking for them. As evidenced now in Iraq, the President calls up the National Guard as he sees fit. I think we both agree that the National Guard is the evolved form of the militia but does that make them or the term "National Guard" interchangable with "militia" in the Constitutional rights such as the 2nd Amendment. Its my contention that they are not interchangable. Furthermore, if they do become interchangable in that context it weakens our individual rights.
Second, while the President threw in that little bit of legislation to call up the guard during national disasters (really a swipe at the governor of LA for her lack of leadership and organization during the Katrina disaster) he has had that ability to call up the Guard for any reason to do with national defense at any time (with that definition being at his discretion). This snipit from the story says as much....
So again, the ability going back to what the founders intended, the ability for the Executive Branch to have the power to take control of the "militia" is more than they would have allowed. Even in the story, from the quote above, the National Guard is referenced as part of a branch of the reserves, not its independant orgaization with leaders of its own choosing as the "militia" is defined.
True, but it was not as easy as it is now. The ability for the President to call up the militia, and then the National Guard, has gotten easier over time to the point that the President has majority control. Just as I was part of the "inactive reserves" for 2 years following my 4 year active duty. However, once relieved of that committment, I could NOT be called into Federal service (or even STATE service) as an "able bodied" man, without re-instatement of, and changes to, the Selective Service Act. Because..... there IS NO MORE state "militia" as described by the 1792 act... because it was transformed into the National Guard by the Act of 1903 and several Defense Bills. I think we agree on this point because the militia has evolved into the National Guard over time. But again, when discussing the Constitution, can we now make the terms "militia" and "National Guard" interchangeable? If we go by the original intent of the founders and compare the current National Guard to what they were trying to protect us against I say it is not feasable or possible to interchange the terms Constitutionally. Therefore, the forefathers can no longer require me to be "identified, organized or commanded" by any State or Federal Officer.... and I am no longer REQUIRED to arm myself and keep a certain amount of ammunition. Because.... I am NOT part of the State Militia. Yes.... I am part of "the people" and as such have the RIGHT to bear arms. My point is.... that this right CAN be infringed, because the 2nd Ammendment was based on the need for a militia, and that need is satisfied by the guard. And that those who defend their right to bear arms SOLELY on the 2nd Ammendment, are not facing the realities of the situation. Ok, now you have gotten to one point I am concerned about. Most people argue that the right of the people is a "collective" right based on the need for a "militia." Those same people argue that the existence of the National Guard as the modern militia negates the need for common citizens to own firearms for that need and therefore any and all regulations....from registration to confiscation....are allowed. Because if you replace "National Guard" with "militia" the term "the people" become moot since the reason for the right of the people is to staff a militia....which is now non-existent. Does that make sense because I think that is what you said above? The reality of the situation is that the militia has evolved into the National Guard but does that mean that my rights in the Bill of Rights evolved too? If so, that is one mighty strong precedent that I don't think we want to set. That is why I referenced the Supreme Court case that says the term "the people" means the same across the other Amendments as it does in the 2nd. I can go with regulation. We are regulated now on firearms. More than I would like but I still have not had my firearms confiscated yet. In fact the 2nd Amendment calls for a well regulated militia. I can see that being "regulated" as far as some current firearms laws. However, infringement implies you can prevent me from owning firearms. As long as the Second Amendment can be interpereted as an individual right then no you can not infringe...sorry but you are wrong there. Regulation and infringment are two different things. Now... I might agree with you that the Ammendment should be "ammended" for clarification.... but I guarantee that if it is.... the PEOPLE will be further restricted, as they are no longer part of the Militia as intended by our forefathers. Dont bet on it. In fact... I am quite sure that it is time for another Constitutional Convention to clarify the WHOLE bloody thing! (including the 9th Ammendment!) as well as the Fourth! |
