Gun Control & RKBA

jmg257

(11,996 posts)

56. As noted, it doesn't protect the militias' right, it protects the people's right

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 02:56 PM

Feb 2013

to serve in the militia.

An example of a law that would violate this right...hmmm...how about a law saying that a felon, or some other subject of due process, could not serve in the militia? Some penalty inflicted by the laws of a State, or say a martial law, when in actual service?

On edit:

here ya go:
Dishonorable discharge is the most serious punitive discharge from military service. It is reserved for those convicted of serious military offenses or what would be considered felonies under civil law, according to the Legal Glossary of the Department of Defense's Defense Human Resource Activity. A dishonorable discharge must be approved by a general court-martial.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

85 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Constitutionality of Proposed Firearms Legislation [View all] SecularMotion Feb 2013 OP

The second two matter... gcomeau Feb 2013 #1

Agree on the "that looks scary" bans. nt Deep13 Feb 2013 #3

The bottom line is weapons that can cause mass carnage in a matter of seconds SecularMotion Feb 2013 #4

restrictions already exist gejohnston Feb 2013 #5

Just to be clear SecularMotion Feb 2013 #6

minus the Hughs Amendment CLEO sign off gejohnston Feb 2013 #8

Ridiculously ineffective restictions already exist. gcomeau Feb 2013 #12

Your fundamental problem is that "military style features" do not contribute to krispos42 Feb 2013 #14

Your fundamental problem is dishonesty SecularMotion Feb 2013 #16

Don't forget sights... they help you aim them... thus making them more deadly iiibbb Feb 2013 #17

Yep - which was proved beyond doubt in the "Ibid" thread. apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #18

So, the OP reinforces what I said before, and you called a lie krispos42 Feb 2013 #28

What you call a barrel shroud is actually a "handguard" and it's standard on ALL rifles. n/t Ashgrey77 Feb 2013 #23

And you conveniently avoided addressing one of my key points... krispos42 Feb 2013 #24

Your comment about a culture war is a distraction. SecularMotion Feb 2013 #30

I wouldn't say that gejohnston Feb 2013 #32

Answer the question, then. krispos42 Feb 2013 #35

worst case scenarios on assault rifles jimmy the one Feb 2013 #36

If it's specious, then why do the gun-control forces keep making it? krispos42 Feb 2013 #37

My bolt-action rifle from WWI has a barrel shroud. AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #39

The Second Amendment states: Kezzy604 Feb 2013 #19

So join the Guard. They are still well regulated and still take volunteers. jmg257 Feb 2013 #20

Really? Kezzy604 Feb 2013 #22

Since keeping arms, like bearing arms, referred to militia service - you'll be fine! jmg257 Feb 2013 #25

Congress can decide to equip the military any way they see fit. Kezzy604 Feb 2013 #26

You should look up USC code for Militia definitions as recognized by US law. jmg257 Feb 2013 #27

You are right, that is what the USC says. Kezzy604 Feb 2013 #31

"A little late to complain now." Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #29

What hoax is that exactly? Kezzy604 Feb 2013 #33

I think he means 'the hoax' that the 2nd only secures the right to bear arms as part jmg257 Feb 2013 #34

I see, so only members of the National Guard are 'people' now? AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #40

Derp. Nope - only National Guard are the well regulated Militia. nt jmg257 Feb 2013 #45

If that were true, how would it be relevant? Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #46

Since Heller, it really isn't relevant...for now. It is an interesting study of history, though. jmg257 Feb 2013 #48

so explain why the right of THE PEOPLE to rkba shall not be infringed then. AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #51

That's quite obvious - so they can serve in the well-regulated Militia. jmg257 Feb 2013 #52

If that were true, Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #53

Don't know - haven't spent any time investigating what the Guard must/musn't do. nt jmg257 Feb 2013 #54

Well, if the 2nd protected the right join the militia, Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #55

As noted, it doesn't protect the militias' right, it protects the people's right jmg257 Feb 2013 #56

Good point, so I edited #55 Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #57

Based on your info, I would say such disqualifiers would infringe on the right to serve jmg257 Feb 2013 #58

It may be an infringement on the intent of the 2nd, or the intent of the founding fathers to avoid iiibbb Feb 2013 #59

"We" allow such infringements, so we sort of do...since THE well regulated jmg257 Feb 2013 #60

Hm. Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of having a bill of rights? Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #61

Yes - it does! Madison knew they would "never be regarded when opposed to the jmg257 Feb 2013 #63

You're reaching iiibbb Feb 2013 #62

Not a reach at all. There is a BIG difference jmg257 Feb 2013 #64

I won't repeat our conversation concerning the militias. iiibbb Feb 2013 #65

Yes - likely. I think the Militias is a pretty clear concept, what jmg257 Feb 2013 #66

You're right, and we can. AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #70

What??? Need to read just a bit further... jmg257 Feb 2013 #71

I don't think you understand the distinction between 'well regulated' and 'unorganized'. AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #72

Of course they are related. The constitution defines exactly jmg257 Feb 2013 #73

You're free to believe that all you want. The Supreme Court disagrees with you. AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #74

Well - of course I agree with your summary due to Heller. But that is jmg257 Feb 2013 #77

Fair point. AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #80

Cheers. I mentioned somewhere in here about the important issue jmg257 Feb 2013 #83

You also might dig into Federalist Paper #29, Hamilton spoke on this at length. AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #78

Have read Hamilton many times. He described a select Militia much closer to the Guard then jmg257 Feb 2013 #81

The issue with these State Defense forces then, is as you noted - they CANNOT be federalized. jmg257 Feb 2013 #75

No, a militia still needs to be subordinate to a civilian authority. AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #76

Agreed, and agreed, And is as I said, why the State Forces aren't jmg257 Feb 2013 #79

That horse is very dead. You can quit beating it. N/T GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #67

Now what fun would that be? Nt jmg257 Feb 2013 #68

I don't think it would run afoul of the Constitution... Deep13 Feb 2013 #2

there is no constitutionally protected right for any individual to own firearms. bowens43 Feb 2013 #7

Can you give me an example of a law Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #10

As usual, no reply. Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #47

Wrong and the President says it is Constitutionally protected. Clames Feb 2013 #11

Supreme Court says different. Light House Feb 2013 #13

The SC has stated in safeinOhio Feb 2013 #38

He also spoke about the inability to ban weapons 'in common use'. AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #41

The full quote was safeinOhio Feb 2013 #42

You'd be wrong. AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #43

Many times on this forum in the past, the question was asked safeinOhio Feb 2013 #44

i agree the quite is correct. AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #50

Where is that quote from? Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #49

You made that quote up hack89 Feb 2013 #69

You disagree with the president and the party platform? nt hack89 Feb 2013 #21

I would challenge the constitutionality of AWBs and mag bans Glaug-Eldare Feb 2013 #9

Ban first, then test the law Progressive dog Feb 2013 #82

Yep. Rec. n/t. apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #15

You can feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel the gun love here MotherPetrie Feb 2013 #84

Well, if it is "sickening," try getting to the facility quickly (or out of here). Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #85