Damned if You Do, Damned if You Don’t

Our opponents are generally quick to tell us that the first clause of the Second Amendment is the defining one, but when a state takes steps to create itself a well-regulated militia, our opponents balk and cry foul.

So let me get this straight, I only have a right to bear arms in a well-regulated militia, who’s existence the fanatic leaders of the gun control movement are going to fight and decry when one is proposed into existence? One thing the leaders of the gun control movement need to get clear is there’s no such thing in our Constitutional framework as a militia that “would not be under the authority of both the state and federal government,” per the quote from CSGV. Any state militia is subject to being called into the service of the United States, regardless of what the Arizona Revised Statutes have to say about it.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Quote of the Day
  2. A Little Poke at the Antis
  3. Heller and McDonald are Fomenting Terrorism?

12 thoughts on “Damned if You Do, Damned if You Don’t”

  1. Although the State Defense Forces (authorized by 32 U.S.C. 109) would not. They are “Troops” that the (pre-Bill of Rights) 1789 Constitution says the states can only maintain by the “consent” of Congress.

    But I wonder if the militia-only folks have ever confronted the question of whether their version of 2A implicitly repudiated that limitation. That the states have to be able to raise SOME kind of organized military unit that the feds can’t simply appropriate wholesale into federal service (unlike the modern National Guard).

    1. That’s exactly what they claimed, even though it was constitutionally absurd, that it was designed for exactly the purpose of preventing the federal government from interfering with the states’ right to maintain a militia. They abandoned that claim a while back when it proved to be untenable, and not a single justice accepted that collective right theory.

      Also, that consent of Congress clause has been taken to mean, in other contexts (interstate compacts) that as long as Congress doesn’t object, that consent is implied. So essentially, Congress could outlaw Arizona’s creation of this militia, but unless it explicitly does so, the consent is implied.

  2. Duhh! Their goals are to ban allthe privately held weapons (not just guns, knives, OC spray and tasers are next) and they have no scruples.

    So they pick and choose their talking points where it works best.

    They have always demonized militas from day one, while talking about the myth of “collective rights”.

    Same with their yammering about Heller being a good decision and “Gun Bans being off the table”, while pushing gun bans and “Safe Storage” laws.

    Occam’s Razor says they’re lying to ban guns.

  3. I believe CSGV doesn’t realize they’ve already lost this argument.

    Arizona Constitution Article 16:
    Section 1.
    The militia of the state of Arizona shall consist of all capable citizens of the state between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, and of those between said ages who shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, residing therein, subject to such exemptions as now exist, or as may hereafter be created, by the laws of the United States or of this state.

  4. Under 32 U.S.C. 109(c) a state may organize its own militia separate from the National Guard. Perpich v. DOD, 496 U.S. 334, 352 (1990). They just can’t receive any funds from the feds. As to the assertion that the Militia are troops, they are not. They are not full time or mercenary forces like the police who are considered troops under that provision. Under the Militia act of 1792 militia service was required of all free white males bearing their own arms. “An army is a body of men whose business is war: the militia a body of men composed of citizens occupied ordinarily in the pursuits of civil life, but organized for discipline and drill, and called into the field for temporary military service when the exigencies of the country require it.” Burroughs v. Peyton, 57 Va. (16 Gratt.) 470, (1864).

  5. I look at it this way.

    Just because the powers that be have decided to dispense with using a militia does not absolve one of the responsibility of being trained in arms. It is my constitutional DUTY to be armed.

    You know…in case they actually do call one up.

    1. I agree with you, whether the sovereign that comes calling is the federal government, to suppress insurrection or repeal an invasion, or whether it’s a state that calls me up to fight against an out-of-control federal government.

      Now if they are calling my out-of-shape ass up, instead of some kid in his prime, full off piss and vinegar, they are getting pretty desperate. But I agree being proficient in the use of arms is a civic duty.

  7. Hey, lefties confuse the police and military all the time. They hate the government too, until they’re in power.

    The only government they like is the one in DC. A journalist actually penned a column where he ask “what are states for?” By his thinking, so much comes from Washington, we don’t need states. Shows you how they really think.

  8. The real question is….

    How do we establish a more formal militia in Pennsylvania?

    My thoughts is to tie it to emergency response as well. Essentially, create a pool of regulated (trained) members so that if you have to call up the larger body, you have trained resources to managed the untrained resources. (These become corporals, sargeants, and lieutenants when activated.)

    Requirements:

    – Require one semi-automatic rifle. Chambered in the common military calibers (presently either .223 or .308)

    – Require a first aid and emergency responder course (CPR, First Aid, etc). Not sure to what level. Something above CPR and below EMT.

    – Clean criminal background (item one kind of requires that).

    – Attend one annual day of training.

Comments are closed.