The Defensive Handgun blog takes down a notion floated by the CSGV that we could disarm everyone by drafting all American citizens into a new, federal militia.Â I think the supremely ironic thing about this proposal is that it is exactly what the anti-federalist were afraid of — that if the national government had plenary power over the militia, they could use that power to disarm the militia.Â The federalists, namely James Madison, chose to deal with this concern by recognizing, through the Second Amendment, that the people had the right to keep and bear arms.Â I think it’s amusing that the gun banners just came up with a scheme that was the reason the Second Amendment exists in the first place.
11 thoughts on “A Modern Militia Act”
interesting that in article 1 section eight of the
constitution for the United States calls for the laws of the United States be enforced by the militia.
Also interesting that the EPA must be the militia since they are enforcing the the law of the United States, or when was the last time an arrest was made by a member of a well regulated militia?
I’m so confused…………….
Where does article I section 8 say that?
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to [bold]execute the Laws of the Union[/bold], suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”
I didn’t remember it was in there, either. Until I went go look when I saw your question, Sebastian.
Hmmm. Weird. Not at all what I remembered.
That just means that’s one reason the national government can federalize state and local militia, it doesn’t mean they can only enforce federal law by calling forth the militia. Even in the early days of the Republic, we had revenue agents.
They cite the ‘Potowmack Institute’ as their source. Anybody who’s ever read the rantings and ravings of that nitwit knows how clueless they are. Which would be why the CSGV likes it so much.
Just doing a quick bit of googling reveals CSGV to now be quoting forum trolls as serious academic research.
The one thing that Congressional debates (past the First Congress) clearly demonstrates is that the authority to discipline the militia did NOT grant Congress authority to disarm them. There’s actually discussion at one point of how dangerous it would be to have the government supply guns to those too poor to arm themselves, because that would grant authority to Congress to take those guns back–and that would lead to serious problems.
So then does the fifth amendment go out the window as Militia’s are specifically mentioned? I know it applies in time of war or public danger. How far is Dead Fish Emanuel’s ‘crisis’ to public danger?
Are they still trying to intentionally misinterpret the phrase “A well-regulated militia…”?
Apparently, the school of thought that insists that a federally controlled militia is the only reason for the second amendment is a school for really dumb kids.
They cannot legally confiscate firearms or other weapons, such as “switchblades” without violating a whole host of constitutional amendments. Namely the 2nd, but also the 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, and 14th. Basically, if a federal agent tries to take your property without due process and just compensation, kill them. They are criminals and they are intentionally violating your rights, and THEY KNOW IT.
yes Sebastian, Congress did commission Agents to collect the taxes, and upon successful collection of those taxes they took their cut and remitted the remainder to the treasury.
Should they be unsuccessful in their collection of those taxes owed, they would then ENDEAVOR their quest as required by law and SET to congress a petition of enforcement of payment. (remember this petition went to congress and not the party mentioned in the constitution in article 3.)
This petition would be forwarded to the executive branch for orders to the Well Regulated Militia to then provide EXACTION of said taxes. (just try to remember a gentleman by the name of Shay and look into the correct trail of that bit of history.)
So in closing this little history lesson, try to remember that all the stuff you read by the legal eagles is stuff that the papa eagles forced down their gullets as little legal eagles, and I am not an eagle feed by legal eagles that nest in the land of lex regina or lex romani. I just like the simple and truthful words that the founding fathers put forth in the Constitution.
Yeah, but just because that’s how things were done doesn’t mean the constitution mandates things be done that way. Again, find me the language that says the militia is the only entity that can execute the laws of the United States. It’s not a matter of “legal eagles” the language you speak of just isn’t there.
Comments are closed.