United States & Gun Control discussion.

[Kraut783]

A lot of states honor other state CHL licenses, I think it needs to be all states.

LEOSA is a step in the right direction....it could pave the way for the above.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Well, there's FOPA but you're talking about carrying it on your person for defensive purposes. I do think licenses to carry firearms should be given the same interstate recognition as marriage and driver's licenses. I do see problems with a national standard for use of force in self-protection, so I think it's got to be similar to driving i.e. in some states you can make a right on red and a left on red and in others you can't and when you're traveling through it's your responsibility to know the difference.

Yeah I'm posting with regards to self defense during travel and not just transport. I think a baseline like I'm not going to face 10 felonies in MA while traveling through the state with my G19 concealed as I pass through the state. Or when I ventilate some thug who tried to hold me up at the Holiday inn, etc. I'm not saying I should be able to stomp around someone else state/community for a few weeks armed and ready to kill. But I do expect to not face unreasonable prosecution for carrying a firearm for protection, using one for protection, especially when traveling to places I am less familiar.

The only way I see that happening is with some sort of federal law, that requires states like MA, NY, CA, etc, to get with the program and stop turning honest Americans into felons, just because they are not from that state or whatever.

 

[policemedic]

A lot of states honor other state CHL licenses, I think it needs to be all states.

LEOSA is a step in the right direction....it could pave the way for the above.

It's certainly a model that can be followed, with some modifications. I think we've proven there's no real downside to it. The argument from the liberal side of the house--who didn't want LEOSA in the first place--will be, "Of course it's ok for cops. But giving it to Joe Sixpack will result in gunfights at Walmart over the last bag of chocolate covered condoms." The argument fails on multiple levels, but they'll make it (again) anyway.

 

[Grunt]

The only way I see that happening is with some sort of federal law, that requires states like MA, NY, CA...

Yep...that would be where some of the staunchest resistance would come from. I like the states where like mine -- your vehicle -- is an extension of your home.

 

[policemedic]

Yeah I'm posting with regards to self defense during travel and not just transport. I think a baseline like I'm not going to face 10 felonies in MA while traveling through the state with my G19 concealed as I pass through the state. Or when I ventilate some thug who tried to hold me up at the Holiday inn, etc. I'm not saying I should be able to stomp around someone else state/community for a few weeks armed and ready to kill. But I do expect to not face unreasonable prosecution for carrying a firearm for protection, using one for protection, especially when traveling to places I am less familiar.

The only way I see that happening is with some sort of federal law, that requires states like MA, NY, CA, etc, to get with the program and stop turning honest Americans into felons, just because they are not from that state or whatever.

I know exactly what you're saying and I agree in principle. I just don't see how you get there without stepping on states rights (not on the carry issue but the ROE issue).

 

[x SF med]

I just don't see how you get there without stepping on states rights (not on the carry issue but the ROE issue).

I agree fully, it is a Federally mandated protection and statement of State's Rights set forth in the Constitution, which means the Federal government is obligated to allow States to regulate the available pool for their militias as they see fit. As the 2A is a guarantee of State's Rights, I used my mandated right to move from a heavily 2A regulated area to a less constricted 2A area... because, all rights not specifically granted to the federal government nor to the several states are individual rights...

But.... apparently, I am not a Constitutionalist and do not understand this document, nor the Bill of rights, nor the Articles of Confederation, which, btw, were never repealed, just amended and clarified by the 2 previously stated documents.

 

[8654Maine]

Jab, bud, let me be re-iterate something: I admire how you handled yourself in this conversation.

Your maturity shows.

Much respect.

Hijack over.

 

[Ranger Psych]

I'll be honest, while I obviously don't like empowering the federal government any more than they already are.... at the same time, I would have ZERO issues with a civilian variant of LEOSA, to include yearly qual at a standard worth a shit.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

X SF med, I don't really follow your analogy that the wording of the 2A allows the states to regulate the militia. The militia, is the able bodied people, the state is a government of the people. So putting it very basically, based on your interpretation, the state gets its authority to regulate the people (which is the state and the militia) from the bill of rights 2A, however, yet are failing to clarify that last sentence "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed".

Even viewing it in the context of the time, its still stating the people inherently possess the right to keep and bear arms, and that it cannot be infringed upon.

However, I will concede that if anyone is going to regulate firearms, it should be the state's, as long as it is agreed upon by the people of the state. Which goes along with your ability to move to more friendly states. Or the people to remove their state reps when they pass shitty laws nobody likes. Like what was seen in Colorado after the magazine limitation were passed in 2012.

Where my views on traveling would come into place, I would imagine, fall into the ability of the federal government to ensure regular travel between the state's, and individuals not being forced to face unreasonable prosecution and punishment. I'd have to do more studying in those particular area's of the constitution before giving a full on "this is how I think it can be done" opinion. But i think, in keeping with the color in which the constitution was written, that its a possibility.

As for the "repealing" of the articles of confederation, it is wildly excepted that the ratification by all states of the current constitution, made the article of confederation null and void. As in, this document we agreed to, was not good enough and really left some holes in having a centralized government, so we are making this new one called the constitution, in order to form a more perfect union, because that other document kind of left us holding a bag of shit.

But yeah, a play on words maybe, but the articles of confederations had about as much bite as a toothless grandma, primarily where it came to regulating commerce, debts, and disagreements between individual states. Hints its replacement, and that whole "form a better union" bit. And the articles of confederation were not amended by the formation of the Constitution of the United States of America, they were fully replaced, and done so when each state ratified the constitution, as in "we all agree this document sucks, so we're replacing it with this new one".

At least as I understand it.


ETA: The Articles of Confederation: Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress)

 

[x SF med]

I don't really follow your analogy that the wording of the 2A allows the states to regulate the militia.

The Constitution dictates that the States regulate the Militia (see below), the 2A allows for the citizenry to be armed in order to fill the militia "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 right and obligation to a well regulated militia are relegated to the state, the right and obligation of the individual is to be ready for the call.

Article I (Article 1 - Legislative)
Section 8
1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;



10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Based on what you posted, the congress has the authority to appoint officers over the militia, to regulate it and discipline it. I'm not seeing where the states reserve the right to do so.

And to be clear, I'm not arguing the idea, just trying to understand exactly where you came to the conclusion's you have.

 

[Dienekes]

I really like your argument X SF Med, but I'd like to play devil's advocate to learn a little more because I love constitutional discussions.

In my IR class, we learned that a State is defined by clearly marked boundaries and territorial sovereignty and is often used synonymously with Country. As well in the historical context, State is often used by recorded political philosophers throughout history in the same context as the word Country. This is buttressed by the famous quotation of by King Louis XVI-"L'etat cest moi"=I am the State. Thus, it can be reasonably inferred that the Framers of the Constitution used the word State synonymously with the word Country.

Also, I understand point 16. to mean that the states(US states) are provided with the power only to train the militia(to the standard set by Congress) and appoint its officers while the federal government reserves the power to actually regulate the militia re: organizing, arming, disciplining, and employing the militia.

Given all that, I would believe that the usage of the word State in the 2A is to be understood on the same level of Country not individual US states, and on that level, the regulating of the militia is to be an inherent responsibility of the federal government.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

If you go read title 10 chapter 13 "the militia" in the U.S.C. you will find the answer. The congress has outlined two classes of militia, 1) an organized militia, consisting of able bodied people ages 17-45 who are members of the National Guard. And 2) the unorganized militia, which consist of all other militia. Which is further defined as all able bodied peoples of the U.S.

Now for example, b/c the congress has split its authority in definition as they organize the the National Guard, there for that is them meeting their constitutional duty as outlined under the articles listed by x SF med. But leaves the door wide open for the unorganized militia, and where states gain the rights to use the NG for state duties under title 32 U.S.C and where states have built state defense forces and or state guards. Again however, that authority was originally provide from the congress, and reaffirmed during periods such as WW2 where states were left with no NG due to deployments.

Furthermore, states have taken upon themselves to further define the difference between state defense forces and militia's, as in Texas where, the militia is every citizen of Texas who is not a member of the armed forces of the united states, the national guard or the state guard forces (otherwise known as the Texas military forces).

You could even go further in the weeds and get down to the level of a sheriffs posse, being the militia, utilized for the purposes of putting down insurrection, riots and maintaining good order of the county. Believe it or not most states have laws that allow for this to this very day, as they should IMHO.

 

[JBS]

Just want to drop this out there for those of us who are huge advocates of preserving the 2nd Amendment.

Ever heard a Liberal argue that the Founding Fathers couldn't possibly forsee "automatic weapons" or "machine guns", and that they'd be horified by the avdvances made in rifles? Or have you ever heard them argue that the 2nd Amendment was only meant for hunting, or for single shot weapons, etc?

Founding Fathers Knew of "Machine Guns", Advancement in Rifles

1650's - Kalthoff Repeater is in production, capable of firing at a rate of 6 times that of a well-trained musketeer. Serviceable samples of this gun are on display in Windsor Castle, as well as Moscow Kremlin Museum.

1717 - Puckle Gun (repeater and described as a "machine gun" in shipping manifests) rolls out prototype. Gun resembles a hand cranked Gatling gun.

1732- George Washington born in Virginia

1735- John Adams born- Massachusetts

1776- Declaration of Independence

1791- 2nd Amendment ratified.

The Founding Fathers, many of whom were military men, were well aware of the new technologies on the horizon, and almost certainly would have known about these new weapons that had been rolled out more than 50 years before the Declaration of Independence.

 

[Dienekes]

If you go read title 10 chapter 13 "the militia" in the U.S.C. you will find the answer. The congress has outlined two classes of militia, 1) an organized militia, consisting of able bodied people ages 17-45 who are members of the National Guard. And 2) the unorganized militia, which consist of all other militia. Which is further defined as all able bodied peoples of the U.S.

Now for example, b/c the congress has split its authority in definition as they organize the the National Guard, there for that is them meeting their constitutional duty as outlined under the articles listed by x SF med. But leaves the door wide open for the unorganized militia, and where states gain the rights to use the NG for state duties under title 32 U.S.C and where states have built state defense forces and or state guards. Again however, that authority was originally provide from the congress, and reaffirmed during periods such as WW2 where states were left with no NG due to deployments.

Furthermore, states have taken upon themselves to further define the difference between state defense forces and militia's, as in Texas where, the militia is every citizen of Texas who is not a member of the armed forces of the united states, the national guard or the state guard forces (otherwise known as the Texas military forces).

You could even go further in the weeds and get down to the level of a sheriffs posse, being the militia, utilized for the purposes of putting down insurrection, riots and maintaining good order of the county. Believe it or not most states have laws that allow for this to this very day, as they should IMHO.

To clarify your argument, the National Guard is the militia being mentioned in Article 1, Section 8, Point 16. and is equivalent to state defense forces or state guards. Unorganized militias are those described as anyone not employed by the federal armed forces or state defense forces such as a sheriff's posse or what the state defines as a militia. Is that correct?

Texas is a good example stating that all citizens are part of the militia, but does every state follow that example? What would a militia looked like if that wasn't the case?

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

I'll respond in 20, got to take my daughter to pre k

 

[AWP]

Regarding militias, and this is a long post so you’ve been warned.

I think we frame the “militia” argument against beliefs and values of the 21st Century instead of the 18th or even the 14th centuries. Our Founding Fathers had a “liberal arts” education. There wasn’t much of a Major or specialized path, a college degree back then was “You need x classes to graduate” which meant they had a little of this and that. Law school wasn’t a necessity; you worked/ studied under a lawyer admitted to the bar and then took your test. Education was different back then.

Why this matters is it allows us to view the world in the 1770’s. Our FF had this well-rounded education which included history. They cite the Greeks and Hobbes and Locke and others I’ve forgotten. They knew history and I have to believe they knew of Crecy and Agincourt, of the power of the longbow. The English, like many European nations, didn’t field a standing army, they conscripted or called men to arms (usually a mixture). A longbow was a preferred weapon in the English arsenal, used by the untrained masses. It isn’t a stretch to think of it as that period’s AR-15 or AK. Longbows at the above battles destroyed French knights; peasants with a modern weapon essentially defeated a state. That period also saw peasant revolts, many of which failed because they lacked arms and leadership. Spears and pitchforks wielded by the untrained against heavy cavalry is and was disastrous. Common people simply didn't "have a vote" or even the means to check the state's power. One final point on the longbow is that our FF had to know about it, the crossbow, conventional bows, different melee weapons, changes in cannon, and of course the rise of gunpowder in individual weapons.

They couldn’t predict modern weapons but they didn’t have to and they probably didn’t care.

“A well regulated militia.” Vague and a bone of contention until you place against the times. Back then standing armies were rare. In fact, Adams vigorously argued against them and a standing navy because of the potential misuse of power. Even as a president he tried to block them, he felt that strongly about the idea. The model in that era was to call upon locals to bring whatever they could and enlist for varying periods of time. Locals provided the weapons and the state provided the formations, pay, leadership, and supplies. Our FF didn’t mean “militia” like today’s National Guard, for them it was the local farmers getting together to defend their homes. This isn’t a totally archaic concept either; it was in use as recent as the Civil War. I think Chamberlain’s 20th Maine faced the crisis of enlistment duration in the run up to Gettysburg.

Our FF weren’t stupid, but they were “vague” for our times and pretty solid given the 1770’s. Standing armies weren’t en vogue so calling for a militia makes perfect sense for that period. Yes, they had some very archaic ideas which were overtaken by events*, but those should be considered against the times as well.

One last point: do we really think the 2nd Amendment is #2 because of an Amendment lottery or random chance? #1: freedom. #2: the means by which to guarantee said freedoms.

We really need to stop the practice of judging others based upon our norms and values today. Times change and so do people. If we want to understand events like the Constitution or the usage of the atomic bomb, we need to place ourselves “in the moment” and not today.

If you made it this far, thank you for indulging me.

* - Amendment III: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

 

[AWP]

To clarify your argument, the National Guard is the militia being mentioned in Article 1, Section 8, Point 16. and is equivalent to state defense forces or state guards.

I strongly disagree with this and my most recent post expresses those thoughts, even though I typed them without seeing your post until now.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

To clarify your argument, the National Guard is the militia being mentioned in Article 1, Section 8, Point 16. and is equivalent to state defense forces or state guards. Unorganized militias are those described as anyone not employed by the federal armed forces or state defense forces such as a sheriff's posse or what the state defines as a militia. Is that correct?

Texas is a good example stating that all citizens are part of the militia, but does every state follow that example? What would a militia looked like if that wasn't the case?

No my argument is that the constitution gave the power to train, equip, appoint officers over, regulate and discipline the militia, specifically to the congress. That the powers has transformed into what we now call the National Guard, and that congress has delegated much of that responsibility to the states. However, during times of emergency and war, states were left without defense forces, so the idea of state defense forces came about, which gave states more authority over militia's, thus the states have developed laws, to have militias in the form of state guards or unorganized militias.

Where things get weird, as Freefalling points out. Is the historical militia and the intent. Militias have always been armed citizens of the community, generally with a local government appointed officer. Think of it like a private corporation, they can appoint officers as need be. These militias would train in marksmanship generally through competitive shooting, and basic file and rank drills, think small town old time parade marching bands and the like. Very basic, and for the sole purpose of community protection, law and order, and keeping bands of outlaws and indians out of their communities. This is before you have town cops, sheriff's, etc. Fast forward in time, they are needed less and less in the community role, and more and more in a state emergency or national role. As those requirements changed, so did the formations, laws, equipment, etc. That was by the congress, and not by the states or the communities.

But getting back on my main point. The organized militia as per title 10 USC, is the National Guard, the unorganized militia, is everybody else, be it a state force, a community force or even a private militia (yes those exists and are legal in most states). Example, militias in the state of Texas, outside of the the National Guard and state guard, are not to assemble, or parade while under arms.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

There is a DOD opinion/guidance paper with regards to state guards, somewhere in the interwebs. I read it a few months back, it was a bit dry, but did touch on the view that the DOD, had no control over state guards/defense forces. And by law were forbidden to provide assistance in training and equipment. Basically states have to equip and train there own forces, and that although the officers were commissioned by the state and that military courtesy should be afforded, that their rank and status as officers was not recognized by the DOD.

Getting back to gun control, the reason I question and differentiate between the 2A and the controls over the militia. Is because IMHO, although the 2A mentions "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" it was not the intent of the founding fathers to put any regulation/restriction on the individuals right to own and possess arms. My interpretation is that the first sentence is a prepatory statement, followed by a clear cut RIGHT of the people, hints "the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". I know this is often debated, specifically by trying to incorporate a well regulated militia as the reason to allow restrictions. But I'm of the opinion, and its my opinion, that the 2A is 100% and individuals right, and doesn't require membership of the militia or any other organization, and that the bill of rights states that no authority is given to any government to infringe upon the right of the people to be armed. But that is my opinion. If anyone is going to restrict my right, the more local it is the better, as the faster I can change it, politically, or by other means...