The Ukraine illustrates why the constitution has a second amendment.

[Cordelier]

When the militia is mustered; not otherwise.

Nu-uh... The Constitution makes very clear that the power to "govern" only exists when the militia is mustered.... the powers to organize, arm, and discipline exist at all times. It's a very clear distinction.

 

[Rucker61]

Nu-uh... The Constitution makes very clear that the power to "govern" only exists when the militia is mustered.... the powers to organize, arm, and discipline exist at all times. It's a very clear distinction.

Why do you believe that?

 

[craig]

Regardless of how it was funded, would it be fair to say that Gen. Lincoln's militia was loyal to the US Government and subject to the orders thereof?

Don't know but the difficulty raising a well regulated militia to put down Shay's Rebellion was an impetus for the second amendment.

 

[Cordelier]

Discussions here manage to go in all directions, don't they.

So you're in agreement that Congress has the power to require the members of the militia to own a weapon for militiia purposes, and establish specications for that weapon, but have no authority with regards how the People choose to exercise their individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes?

Not quite... I think Congress has the power to discipline - at least to some degree - how citizens keep and bear their militia-grade weapons. What the limits of that Congressional power are up to the Courts to determine. What matters at that point is the appropriate test for the Courts to apply. For self-defense weapons covered by the 9th Amendment, I'd argue Congressional regulation would have to pass strict scrutiny. For militia-grade weapons, given the additional powers given to Congress over the militia, I'd argue that intermediate scrutiny would be appropriate.

 

[Cordelier]

Why do you believe that?

Because that's what Article I § 8 says:

"The Congress shall have Power 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..."

It seems pretty obvious to me that the Founders intended that a clear distinction exist between the first three powers and the fourth.

 

[Cordelier]

Don't know but the difficulty raising a well regulated militia to put down Shay's Rebellion was an impetus for the second amendment.

... or at least the prefatory clause thereof.

 

[TurtleDude]

Nu-uh... The Constitution makes very clear that the power to "govern" only exists when the militia is mustered.... the powers to organize, arm, and discipline exist at all times. It's a very clear distinction.

bullshit. If you are not actively serving in the militia congress has ZERO power to tell you what to wear or where to go. and if you are not actively serving, the UCMJ does not apply to you.

 

[TurtleDude]

Not quite... I think Congress has the power to discipline - at least to some degree - how citizens keep and bear their militia-grade weapons. What the limits of that Congressional power are up to the Courts to determine. What matters at that point is the appropriate test for the Courts to apply. For self-defense weapons covered by the 9th Amendment, I'd argue Congressional regulation would have to pass strict scrutiny. For militia-grade weapons, given the additional powers given to Congress over the militia, I'd argue that intermediate scrutiny would be appropriate.

well your constitutional argument has zero support in any area that matters

 

[Cordelier]

well your constitutional argument has zero support in any area that matters

Any area that matters to you. I'd argue that area is pretty irrelevant where it actually comes to the Constitution, though.

 

[Cordelier]

bullshit. If you are not actively serving in the militia congress has ZERO power to tell you what to wear or where to go. and if you are not actively serving, the UCMJ does not apply to you.

Power to govern. Obviously distinct from the powers to organize, arm, and discipline. Obvious to people who have reading comprehension anyway.

 

[Rucker61]

Not quite... I think Congress has the power to discipline - at least to some degree - how citizens keep and bear their militia-grade weapons.

Not citizens, just members of the militia in federal service.

What the limits of that Congressional power are up to the Courts to determine. What matters at that point is the appropriate test for the Courts to apply. For self-defense weapons covered by the 9th Amendment, I'd argue Congressional regulation would have to pass strict scrutiny. For militia-grade weapons, given the additional powers given to Congress over the militia, I'd argue that intermediate scrutiny would be appropriate.

"Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * 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."

"
Justia › US Law › US Codes and Statutes › US Constitution Annotated › Article I. Legislative Department › The Militia Clauses

The Militia Clauses​

Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * 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.

---

ANNOTATIONS
Calling Out the Militia
The states as well as Congress may prescribe penalties for failure to obey the President’s call of the militia. They also have a concurrent power to aid the National Government by calls under their own authority, and in emergencies may use "the militia to put down armed insurrection.1784 The Federal Government may call out the militia in case of civil war; its authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and to carry on war.1785 The act of February 28, 1795,1786 which delegated to the President the power to call out the militia, was held constitutional.1787 A militiaman who refused to obey such a call was not “employed in the service of the United States so as to be subject to the article of war,” but was liable to be tried for disobedience of the act of 1795."

The Militia Clauses

, of the U.S. Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation

law.justia.com

Note that the miltiaman was not to be considered in the service and subject to the discipline of such service until the militia was mustered and the militiaman showed up. The "discipline" over the militia only exists when the militia is in federal service.

 

[Cordelier]

Not citizens, just members of the militia in federal service.


"Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * 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."

"
Justia › US Law › US Codes and Statutes › US Constitution Annotated › Article I. Legislative Department › The Militia Clauses

The Militia Clauses​

Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * 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.

---

ANNOTATIONS
Calling Out the Militia
The states as well as Congress may prescribe penalties for failure to obey the President’s call of the militia. They also have a concurrent power to aid the National Government by calls under their own authority, and in emergencies may use "the militia to put down armed insurrection.1784 The Federal Government may call out the militia in case of civil war; its authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and to carry on war.1785 The act of February 28, 1795,1786 which delegated to the President the power to call out the militia, was held constitutional.1787 A militiaman who refused to obey such a call was not “employed in the service of the United States so as to be subject to the article of war,” but was liable to be tried for disobedience of the act of 1795."

The Militia Clauses

, of the U.S. Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation

law.justia.com

Note that the miltiaman was not to be considered in the service and subject to the discipline of such service until the militia was mustered and the militiaman showed up. The "discipline" over the militia only exists when the militia is in federal service.

I'd argue that "discipline" has more to do with the day-to-day comportment of the militia member. Their training and the manner of how they handle their weapons, for example.

How they respond when called into duty and their adherence to the UCMJ would more aptly fall under "governance".

 

[TurtleDude]

Any area that matters to you. I'd argue that area is pretty irrelevant where it actually comes to the Constitution, though.

It is obvious you want to get around the fact that congress was never delegated any proper power in this area and none of the gun restrictionists even attempt to use your argument-instead relying on the bullshit FDR expansion of the commerce clause.

 

[TurtleDude]

Not citizens, just members of the militia in federal service.


"Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * 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."

"
Justia › US Law › US Codes and Statutes › US Constitution Annotated › Article I. Legislative Department › The Militia Clauses

The Militia Clauses​

Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * 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.

---

ANNOTATIONS
Calling Out the Militia
The states as well as Congress may prescribe penalties for failure to obey the President’s call of the militia. They also have a concurrent power to aid the National Government by calls under their own authority, and in emergencies may use "the militia to put down armed insurrection.1784 The Federal Government may call out the militia in case of civil war; its authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and to carry on war.1785 The act of February 28, 1795,1786 which delegated to the President the power to call out the militia, was held constitutional.1787 A militiaman who refused to obey such a call was not “employed in the service of the United States so as to be subject to the article of war,” but was liable to be tried for disobedience of the act of 1795."

The Militia Clauses

, of the U.S. Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation

law.justia.com

Note that the miltiaman was not to be considered in the service and subject to the discipline of such service until the militia was mustered and the militiaman showed up. The "discipline" over the militia only exists when the militia is in federal service.

which completely eviscerates his nonsense that congress can "discipline the militia" by telling citizens they cannot own certain weapons.

 

[Rucker61]

I'd argue that "discipline" has more to do with the day-to-day comportment of the militia member. Their training and the manner of how they handle their weapons, for example.

How they respond when called into duty and their adherence to the UCMJ would more aptly fall under "governance".

Argue away. The linked article was fairly clear that Congress didn't have power over the militia unless mustered in federal service.

 

[Cordelier]

Argue away. The linked article was fairly clear that Congress didn't have power over the militia unless mustered in federal service.

Maybe you should have read a little further?

Regulation of the Militia
The power of Congress over the militia “being unlimited, except in the two particulars of officering and training them . . . it may be exercised to any extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress. . . . The power of the state government to legislate on the same subjects, having existed prior to the formation of the Constitution, and not having been prohibited by that instrument, it remains with the States, subordinate nevertheless to the paramount law of the General Government. . . .”

 

[Cordelier]

It is obvious you want to get around the fact that congress was never delegated any proper power in this area and none of the gun restrictionists even attempt to use your argument-instead relying on the bullshit FDR expansion of the commerce clause.

*LOL* Why don't you wipe off your screen? Having to read through all that spittle can't be helping with your comprehension issues.

 

[Rucker61]

Maybe you should have read a little further?

Regulation of the Militia
The power of Congress over the militia “being unlimited, except in the two particulars of officering and training them . . . it may be exercised to any extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress. . . . The power of the state government to legislate on the same subjects, having existed prior to the formation of the Constitution, and not having been prohibited by that instrument, it remains with the States, subordinate nevertheless to the paramount law of the General Government. . . .”

Once mustered. Until then the miliaman was not in federal service.

 

[Cordelier]

Once mustered. Until then the miliaman was not in federal service.

Still subject to the regulation of Congress. If there wasn't a distinction, then the Constitution wouldn't have drawn one.

 

[TurtleDude]

Maybe you should have read a little further?

Regulation of the Militia
The power of Congress over the militia “being unlimited, except in the two particulars of officering and training them . . . it may be exercised to any extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress. . . . The power of the state government to legislate on the same subjects, having existed prior to the formation of the Constitution, and not having been prohibited by that instrument, it remains with the States, subordinate nevertheless to the paramount law of the General Government. . . .”

if you were right (and you are not) why did the FDR AG not use this to support the 1934 NFA?

 

[TurtleDude]

Once mustered. Until then the miliaman was not in federal service.

He doesn't understand the entire concept of federalism and when federal powers actually vest

 

[Cordelier]

if you were right (and you are not) why did the FDR AG not use this to support the 1934 NFA?

I don't know. You'll have to ask AG Cummings.

That was a bit before my time.

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't know. You'll have to ask AG Cummings.

That was a bit before my time.

the point is-we had top flight legal minds who were doing everything possible trying to justify what both FDR and his minions knew was essentially unconstitutional. YOu'd think they would have used the militia clause if they thought it would fly. It didn't, so they basically gave the federal government a huge grant of power by expansion of the CC

 

[Cordelier]

the point is-we had top flight legal minds who were doing everything possible trying to justify what both FDR and his minions knew was essentially unconstitutional. YOu'd think they would have used the militia clause if they thought it would fly. It didn't, so they basically gave the federal government a huge grant of power by expansion of the CC

If it was unconstitutional, it would have been struck down. The Supreme Court had no compunctions about striking down New Deal legislation they felt to be unconstitutional at that time. So why didn't they?

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

one of the most pathetic arguments we see from the gun banners is their specious claims that the second amendment somehow delegates a power to the government to "well regulate" those who keep and bear arms. They want to pretend that the second somehow gave the federal government powers that Article One Section Eight did not. The second talks about a well regulated militia-one in working order. It says nothing about regulating the citizens.

For some reason the left is hell bent on ruling over the people. I want a government that serves the people. A government that protects our rights and freedom. Amendments to the constitution should be additional rights. Instead somehow they get the idea that amendments should take away rights or restrict them. They believe our rights as people should be government granted privilege's. You know like giving a dog a treat if it rolls over or does some trick for it's master.