Montana legislator proposes well regulated militia; CSGV shrieks 'Insurrection!'

The forcible citizen disarmament lobby has, for the last couple decades, argued that the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment is a "collective" right, rather than a right of individuals. The argument goes something like, "Because the text of the Second Amendment begins with a statement of the necessity of a well regulated militia, 'right of the people' doesn't really mean . . . 'right of the people,'" or something like that. That, anyway, is how the argument goes when they don't decide to simply edit the "of the people" part entirely out of the amendment.

--snip--

Even setting aside the numerous serious weaknesses in the argument that the Second Amendment protects only government-sanctioned miltias' right to keep and bear arms, the absurdity of the gun ban lobby's arguments becomes even more apparent when a state considers forming a well regulated militia, and we're told that this smacks of "Insurrectionism"--always capitalized, as per the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) rules of grammar.

--snip--

Rep. Wendy Warburton, of Havre, told the House State Administration Committee that House Bill 278 would let residents organize military-like companies called "home guards" that would answer to the governor and sheriffs during emergencies.

Warburton said slow response and poor organization during major emergencies in the past prompted her to sponsor the bill.

"Really the bill is just about local volunteers being prepared in case of emergency to support the National Guard, support the sheriff, support the governor as needed," Warburton said.

--snip--

A state-sanctioned group of volunteers equipped and trained to help during emergencies--sounds benign enough, doesn't it? Well, not to the CSGV. From the latest entry on their "Insurrectionist Timeline" (which begins with the Supreme Court's Heller ruling):

February 4, 2011—Montana Rep. Wendy Warburton (R-Havre) introduces legislation to allow state residents to organize armed units called "home guards" that would answer to the governor and sheriffs during emergenices. These paramilitary groups would be formed into "infantry companies" with their own uniforms, flags, and identities, and would not be subject to federal oversight or control.

Remember, now, that according to the "collective rights" interpretation, the Second Amendment exists only to protect the states' power to raise and equip militias, without interference from the federal government. Now, when a state proposes to do that, the CSGV screams about the lack of "federal oversight or control."

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-st-louis/montana-legislator-proposes-well-regulated-militia-csgv-shrieks-insurrection

Even under assumptions of the collective right argument there is *any* historical reading that would lead anyone to believe militias were solely at the call of the federal government?

Many of MY previous ideas on gun control had to be set aside once I conceded individual gun ownership was a right.

You cannot claim to be honest when your underlying assumption falls away but you simply rationalize new ways of keeping the same conclusions.

"Nuts"

Unfortunately, intellectual consistency is not the hallmark of anti RKBA thinking.

Well, maybe it is fortunate, as it makes the "arguments" ever so much easier to defeat.

obviously a collective right of the people when belonging to a militia. No militia, no guns. Otherwise how does one explain the first part about "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, ..."
There is no mention of person or persons or individual or individuals. The operating word here is "people". "...the people...", Collectively.
The two parts of the sentence are tied together. The first part is not silent therefore being null and void, without merit. Militia is comprised of the people collectively.

:rofl:

Don't forget to tip the waitperson.

The prefatory clause is not limitation or all encompassing on the meaning of the 2A - "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This is basic english.

A well stocked pantry, being necessary to create fine cuisine, the right of the People to purchase cooking supplies shall not be infringed. Tell me, in the aforementioned statement who has the right to purchase cooking supplies... well-stocked pantries or The People?

Also, the bill of rights has been thoroughly recognized as restriction on government powers. Your description reads as if the 2A was a limitation on separate individuals (as opposed to the rest of the BoR). Everywhere else (including state constitutions circa 1787) that "The People" appears it refers to individual citizens. Why would the 2nd amendment be different in that regard as well? In legal documents and declarations, defined consistent usage of words is necessary for proper interpretation of the law. Your interpretation of the 2A creates a few inconsistencies with the rest of the BoR and State Constitutions.

Furthermore, "Militia" is legally defined in the United States Code to mean able bodied adults of fighting age. So even if you could successfully (and erroneously) claim a collective right reserved to a militia... the only people you'd take guns from is the old/elderly. By being an able bodied adult of fighting age, you are ALREADY in the unorganized militia. :hi:

After all, the Fourth Amendment states that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated <...>" So does that right only apply to "the people collectively," meaning that the government can search and seize an individual and/or his possessions at will?

Can Congress pass a law prohibiting individuals from petitioning the government for redress of grievances, and prohibit peaceable assembly if less than 100% of the population shows up?

...Please?

obviously a collective right of the people when belonging to a militia. No militia, no guns. Otherwise how does one explain the first part about "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, ..."
There is no mention of person or persons or individual or individuals. The operating word here is "people". "...the people...", Collectively.
The two parts of the sentence are tied together. The first part is not silent therefore being null and void, without merit. Militia is comprised of the people collectively.

Let's quote the entire amendment, shall we?

"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."

You'll note here that the amendment says that well regulated militias are necessary to free states.

First question: Why are well-regulated militias necessary to free states?

Second, you'll note that it is the right of the People to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed. Not the right of the militias. This was probably done on purpose. They knew that the government institution of the militias might be corrupted or usurped, as in fact they were in 1903 with the passage of the Dick Act. Thus they made sure that the ultimate power of bearing arms resided with the People.

As to the collective vs. individual right, this has been well and thoroughly debated. It is certainly never asserted that the right to free speech is only a collective right - that an individual cannot freely speak his mind against the government, for example. It is certainly never asserted that individuals don't have the right to protection from unreasonable searches or seizures. Every right enumerated by the Constitution is a right that an individual can exercise. Otherwise, what good is it? What good is a right if you have to convince someone that you belong to a group of sufficient size and recognition in order to exercise it? It is an abhorrent idea at face value.

But in any case, DC vs. Heller has now made it a matter of settled constitutional law that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right regardless of membership in any organization, and Chicago vs McDonald has now made it a matter of settled constitutional law that the right to keep and bear arms is incorporated under the 14th amendment under the Due Process clause, which means the states cannot abrogate it.

The Constitution. There are some basic rules of statutory interpretation, and the Constitution is a statute:

You start with the plain language of the statute. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I don't think you need to have the plain meaning explained to you.

Statutes are interpreted as a whole, and words in statutes are given consistent definitions. Everywhere else in the constitution, the phrase "the people" refers to individual rights. There is no reason to believe, absent clear language to the contrary, that a different definition is used in the Second Amendment than anywhere else. Also, the people cannot mean a corporate right of the state due to the following language: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This language indicates that the people are distinct entities from either the federal or state governments, thus "the people" in the Second Amendment must mean the individual people because of the rule that words in statutes are given consistent meanings throughout.

You seem to view amendment 2 as if it is not a restriction on governmental power.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is the reason government shall not infringe on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms".


If government is forbidden from doing a thing, it stands to reason, that the government is forbidden from doing that thing both to individuals and to any collective.

To "infringe" on an individual, is to infringe part of the collective.

You can not have a collective without individuals, by definition.

The Militia, the State, and the People. If they had wanted the Militia only to have the right to keep and bear arms, they would have said so.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the militiamen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

For example.

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;

Up to the feds to regulate the militia according to Article 1 section 8.

Pretty clear to me.

The powers of the federal congress regarding the militias of the several states pertain to facilitating the collaboration of those militias when called to federal service. That is, every state militia should (in modern terms) have the same Table of Organization (the same number of men in a company, the same number of companies in a battalion, the same number of battalions in a regiment, etc.) and Equipment (they should all be armed with weapons in the same caliber so they can all use the same ammunition), and they should all understand a common format of orders, both written and verbal (so that if a general from Virginia orders a unit of the Pennsylvania militia to "right wheel" they don't stare at him in incomprehension).

The militias of the several states were intentionally not "subject to federal oversight or control" unless and until they were called to federal service, be it against an internal insurrection or an external invasion. Legally, as long as their organization, equipment and operational doctrine conformed to the standards set by Congress, nothing else mattered. Note that there's nothing granting Congress the power to dictate "uniforms, flags, and identities" as long as the organization of infantry companies conformed to federally set standards.

This militia, under the law, would be called up to be shipped to Iraq or they wouldn't be allowed under the Constitution.

As far as I'm aware, the only time state militias, called into federal service, have operated outside territory claimed by the United States was in a couple of cross-border operations into Canada during the War of 1812, and even then at least two of them refused to leave U.S. soil.

As one militia officer put it in the late 18th century, the militia is (was) the United States' shield. Its purpose was to repel invasion of American soil and put down insurrections; not to be shipped to another continent to project American power. The latter was what the Regular Army, the Navy and Marine Corps were for. Nobody called up the militia to participate in the Barbary Wars or the Sumatran Expeditions.

Nam and every police action since in the Middle East. The National Guard is the modern militia.

The National Guard is a reserve component of the federal armed forces, funded and equipped with federal funds; its elements at the state level are not state institutions (though the state can "borrow" the Guard). In that aspect, it is the exact opposite of the state militias.

Look, under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress can "provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." The purpose of the original state militias did not involve operations outside the United States. Arguably, sending the militia into Canada was unconstitutional. And the federal government would similarly have no authority to press the proposed Montana militia into federal service, except to "suppress insurrections and repel invasions." Shipping them off to Afghanistan or Korea would be well outside the federal government's remit. Florida or even Hawaii, but foreign soil is out.

Service in a militia? I thought you were a gun owner (Empathy)Are you in a militia?

Empathy: “I’m a gun owner and I support this common sense gun law.” KKK and Neo-NAZIs own guns and would support a ban on guns in the inner city so that minorities couldn’t own guns. The Brady’s themselves own guns, yet are willing to ban others from owning guns. This is another deceptive method to get you to support their Agenda. They want you to feel they are on your side, so you can either back off or aid them.

to come up with a crazy conspiracy about me?
Where did I say "firearms ownership should be connected w/Service in a militia?" I did not say that anywhere, just as you didn't say you want to kill all the people that don't agree with you. I guess no one has to take your word for anything you claim as you, surely can't believe me when I say I'm a gun owner and CCW holder. Therefore, I can conclude you ARE a member of the KKK and Neo-Nazis and only use the claim to not be a racist because that is a tactic used by some sway others. In reality you support the NRA just like the KKK, making you one of them, using your logic.

How about just addressing the issues and not me personally. Try addressing actual statements without implying motive and you won't sound like a right-wing crazy Glen Beck.

you claimed "firearms ownership should be connected w/Service in a militia?" I was asking you to clarify your comment.

And you have clearly become more open about advocating severe restricitions on firearms owner ship just since I've been here

"So are you saying that firearms ownership should be connected w/sevice in a militia?"

So, that fact is I never said that or implied that. The fact is that is the exact quote you made. The rest is just your mistaken opinion. My opinion is that you have been more open about your advocating for criminals and the insane to have easier access to handguns.

Is this a true statement? So are you saying that firearms ownership should be connected w/sevice in a militia?"

Or is it not?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Look, the anti-firearm folks are looking for any reason to get rid of all firearms. They don't really want a "well-regulated militia". What they want is to get rid of firearms. They'll tell you you can't have them because you aren't in a well-regulated militia, but as soon as that becomes a possibility they'll find another reason.

If they did something like that here I would be all for it. Pa has a law that makes it a bit hazy as to whether they are legal or not. I would hope if something happened in the area I would be out there helping where I could, but a few hundred extra hands would be amazing. There was a huge gas explosion the next town over last night, damaged 50 homes. If the militia could turn out they would have things cleared away and helped find survivors.