Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 11/25/2007 2:40:57 PM EDT
I was listening to a re-broadcast of the Schnitt Show today on XM on my way into work. They were talking about the DC case going to SCOTUS...I learned/ heard somethings and I want to further my readings.

A caller stated to be a US History major, a former Cop and he has since picked up another degree in US Military history...

He (the caller) stated that the words "A well regulated Militia.." that the word 'Regulated' actually means "well working and functional". He only cited a dictionary from the time. He also stated that the the 'Milita' can be 17 year olds to 45 year olds"...where did he get that from? BOR? But wouldn't that be a state issue? each state to have its own militia and when activated then they rcv federal dollars and orders?

So my interest is sparked...I would like to learn more about that...idea's, points to read?
Link Posted: 11/25/2007 7:04:41 PM EDT
Try Your Library, go to the legal section. I found my States description of militia at my library. Every person that could pick up a gun could be part of the"unorganized militia". My words not the actual document. But it was pretty liberal if You aren't a convicted felon. So it could be interesting from State to State.
I personally think it will be more of an argument whether D.C. is a State or a Federal jurisdiction. If it's ruled Federal the ban will stand and the State question will have to be addressed in another case.
Link Posted: 11/26/2007 1:19:57 PM EDT
My understanding is that in 1776 a "regulater" on a rifle was a reference to your iron sights.
Link Posted: 11/26/2007 1:28:35 PM EDT
get a copy of "the second amendment primer" Awesome book. It will tell you all you ever have or ever will want to know about "the right most valued by free men"
Link Posted: 11/26/2007 1:30:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/26/2007 1:31:02 PM EDT by JPratt06]
Federal code defines the militia in two parts: organized and unorganized. Any 17-45 year-old male citizen or future citizen not in the organized militia is part of the unorganized, general militia.
Link Posted: 11/26/2007 1:44:22 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/26/2007 1:51:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JPratt06:
Federal code defines the militia in two parts: organized and unorganized. Any 17-45 year-old male citizen or future citizen not in the organized militia is part of the unorganized, general militia.


If I remember right the part of the code is section 10.

The second is divided in to 4 parts by commas(they were put there for a reason).

The first part 'A well regulated Militia' defines the what or object for the admendment.

the second part 'being necessary to the security of a free State' defines the why of the admendment.

the third part ' the right of the people to keep and bear Arms' defines who enforces the admendment. It also ties in with the first 3 words of the constitution on who it affects-'WE THE PEOPLE'.- and is defined as an individual right as defined by the first.

the forth part 'shall not be infringed' defines what the goverment can not do to an individual right.

Link Posted: 12/1/2007 4:50:08 PM EDT
United States Code
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 311. 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.

Source
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 12:55:44 PM EDT
If you look up the word "regulate", it's definition is something along the lines of "proscribe by rule". What it means is to have a consistent set of rules that dictates how things should be run. In the context of the militia, it had to do with making sure the government had a consistently trained militia available when needed. They wanted to make sure that, in the need of the militia, that New York's militia would be similarly trained to that of Georgia, Virginia, and so on. Modern liberals have taken "regulate" to mean governement control, but it really only means writing down constistent rules or procedures for implementing laws.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 4:22:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1cheapshot:
Try Your Library, go to the legal section. I found my States description of militia at my library. Every person that could pick up a gun could be part of the"unorganized militia". My words not the actual document. But it was pretty liberal if You aren't a convicted felon. So it could be interesting from State to State.
I personally think it will be more of an argument whether D.C. is a State or a Federal jurisdiction. If it's ruled Federal the ban will stand and the State question will have to be addressed in another case.


Actually, if it's ruled federal, then the ban should rightfully be struck down, as the federal government has oversight for D.C.. And since the FEDERAL government is the only one affected by the 2nd amendment, and are restricetd by it from INFRINGING upon that right, then they should have had no ability to legally ban anything. But going one step further, can anyone explain to me why, back in the 20s, they required a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol, which is not mentioned in the founding documents, and then required another constitutional amendment to undo that prohibition, but yet firearms, which are mentioned explicitly as inviolate by the fed, have not yet required that same level of importance as to require a constitutional amendment to "regulate" in any way whatsoever? Necause I damn sure can't seem to find anything there that makes sense
Top Top