Normal
0
false
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
"Both the oligarch and Tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms."
- Aristotle
"The 2nd amendment has the clause, "A well- regulated militia..." and the "bear arms" phrase is strictly a militia term."
- nobrainmass, The Left Bullies the NRA, 26 December 2012
If the Second Amendment did not apply to individuals, there would be no need for it since Article I, Section 8....in not one, but two places.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 states:
"The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
From Mackubin Owens, Professor of National Security Affairs, Senior Fellow of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, United States Naval War College:
For the Founders, the militia arose from the Posse Comitatus, constituting the people as a whole and embodying the Anglo-American idea that the citizenry is the best enforcer of the law. "A militia when properly formed," wrote Richard Henry Lee in his Letters From the Federal Farmer, "are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." From its origins in Britain, the Posse Comitatus (meaning to be able to be an attendant) was generally understood to constitute the constabulary of the "shire." When order was threatened, the "shire-reeve," or sheriff, would raise the "hue and cry," and all citizens who heard it were bound to render assistance in apprehending a criminal or maintaining order. The Framers transferred the power of calling out the militia from local authorities to the Congress.
The Anti-Federalists were not pleased. They wanted the militia to remain under state control as a check on the national government. Many feared that an institution intended for local defence could be dispatched far from home. As Luther Martin objected:
“As it now stands, the Congress will have the power, if they please, to march the whole militia of Maryland to the remotest part of the union, and keep them in service as long as they think proper, without being in any respect dependent upon the government of Maryland for this unlimited exercise of power over its citizens.” "Genuine Information," 1788.
In the "Calling Forth" Act of 1792a/k/a The Militia Act of 1792, Congress exercised its powers under the Militia Clause and delegated to the President the authority to call out the militia and issue it orders when invasion appeared imminent or to suppress insurrections. While the act gave the President a relatively free hand in case of invasion, it constrained his authority in the case of insurrections by requiring that a federal judge certify that the civil authority and the Posse Comitatus were powerless to meet the exigency. The President had also to order the insurgents to disband before he could mobilize the militia. This was the procedure that President George Washington followed during the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794.
In 1795, Congress refined the language authorising the President to federalise the militia:
[W]henever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the president to call forth such number of the militia of the state, or states most convenient to the place of danger, or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose to such officer or officers of the militia, as he shall think proper.
But even such clear language was insufficient to prevent a challenge to presidential authority during the War of 1812. At the outset of the conflict, President James Madison ordered the governors of Connecticut and Massachusetts to provide militia detachments for the defence of the maritime frontiers of the United States. These governors, however, were Federalists who opposed the war. They claimed that they, not the President, had the authority to determine whether an emergency existed. Governor Caleb Strong of Massachusetts requested an opinion of his state's Supreme Judicial Court, which concluded that this right was "vested in the commanders-in-chief of the militia of the several states." Op. of Justices 8 Mass. 548 (1812)
The issue was finally resolved by the Supreme Court in 1827 in Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. 19. Although the case explicitly concerned the validity of a court-martial of a militiaman, the decision rendered by Justice Joseph Story validated the claim that the President had the exclusive right to judge whether there was an exigency sufficient for calling forth the militia. State governors, however, retain concurrent authority to call out their respective militias to handle civil and military emergencies, Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. 1 (1820).
Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 states:
"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."
The militia, long a staple of republican thought, loomed large in the deliberations of the Framers, many of whom were troubled by the prospect of a standing army in times of peace. For the Founders, a militia, composed of a "people numerous and armed," was the ultimate guardian of liberty. It was a means to enable citizens not only to protect themselves against their fellows but also, particularly for the Anti-Federalists, to protect themselves from an oppressive government. "The militia is our ultimate safety," said Patrick Henry during the Virginia ratifying convention. "We can have no security without it. The great object is that every man be armed....Everyone, who is able, may have a gun." Both the Pennsylvania and Vermont constitutions asserted that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state...."
The Anti-Federalists feared that Congress would permit the militia to atrophy, leaving the states defenceless against the central government. In the Virginia ratifying convention, George Mason, while advocating a stronger central control over the militia, nevertheless argued that there was a danger that Congress could render the militia useless "by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them &c." The desire to prevent enfeebling state militias, which provided a check to a standing army, prompted the ratifying conventions to call for an amendment guaranteeing the right of citizens to bear arms. The First Congress responded, but the Second Amendment did not remove national control over armed forces or the state militias.
Federal preemption of state-militia legislation commenced very early in the history of the Republic. In Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. 1 (1820), the Supreme Court stated that the federal government's power over the militia "may be exercised to any extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress."
Despite the generally poor performance of the militia during the Revolution, Federalists recognized that without a militia, there would be no United States military establishment. They believed, however, that they could minimise the weaknesses of the militia by creating a select militia corps in each state and establishing federal control over officership and training. The ultimate Federalist goal was to turn the militia into a national reserve of uniform, interchangeable units. In 1792, Congress passed the Uniform Militia Act, which remained the basic militia law of the United States until the twentieth century. This act established an "obligated" militia, based on universal military service. All able-bodied white men between the ages of eighteen and forty-five were required to enroll. But the act fell far short of Federalist goals. It did not create select state corps and, most importantly, did not impose penalties on the states or individuals for noncompliance. For the most part, the states ignored the provisions of the act. The abysmal performance of the militia during the War of 1812 ensured the demise of the obligated reserve as established by the Founding generation.
The obligated militia was succeeded by the "uniformed" militia, local volunteer units generally equipped and supported by their own members. In addition, the states continued to provide volunteer citizen-soldiers when the regular U.S. Army had to be expanded, as was the case during the Mexican War and the Civil War. After the Civil War, the uniformed militia reemerged as the National Guard, but, unhappy with their largely domestic constabulary role, guardsmen lobbied for the mission of a national reserve. In the Militia Act of 1903 (the Dick Act), amended and expanded in 1908, Congress divided the eligible male population into an "organised militia" (the National Guard of the several states) and a "reserve," or "unorganised," militia.
In response to an opinion by the Attorney General that the Militia Clause and the Dick Act precluded the employment of guardsmen outside of United States borders, Congress included in the National Security Act of 1916 (amended in 1920 and 1933) provisions that explicitly "federalised" the National Guard. This act, as amended, has continued to govern federal-state military relations. By giving the United States Army extensive control of National Guard officers and units, and by making state forces available for duty overseas, the National Security Act of 1916 essentially stripped the states of all of their militia powers. It effectively repealed the power of the states to appoint officers by limiting such appointments to those who "shall have successfully passed such tests as to...physical, moral and professional fitness as the President shall prescribe." The law stated that the army of the United States now included both the regular army and "the National Guard while in the service of the United States." In Cox v. Wood, 247 U.S. 3 (1918), the Supreme Court validated the action of Congress, holding that the plenary power to raise armies was "not qualified or restricted by the provisions of the Militia Clause."
The World War I draft completely preempted state sovereignty regarding the militia by drafting individual guardsmen directly into the United States Army. In The Selective Draft Law Cases (1918), the Court held that the states held sway over the militia only "to the extent that such actual control was not taken away by the exercise by Congress of its power to raise armies."
The transition of the National Guard into a national reserve reached its completion during the Cold War. Despite the existence of a large regular army, Guard units were included in most war plans. But with federal funding, which covered about ninety-five percent of the costs, came federal control. While governors continued to call up the Guard to quell domestic disturbances and to aid in disaster relief, they discovered that their control was trumped by federal demands. For instance, in protest against United States actions in Central America during the 1980s, several governors attempted to prevent units from their states from deploying to Honduras and El Salvador for training. In response, Congress passed a law "prohibiting a governor from withholding consent to a unit of the National Guard's being ordered to active duty outside the United States on the ground that the governor objects to the location, purpose, type, or schedule of that duty." In such cases as Perpich v. Department of Defence, 496 U.S. 334 (1990), the Court supported Congress's position.
With the end of the Cold War, the National Guard's role as a national reserve was called into question. As a result of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, some observers believed that the Guard could return to a domestic constabulary role. On the other hand, extensive military commitments abroad have required the Guard to remain an active element in the United States armed forces.
The protester of the individual's right to bear arms writes "the 'bear arms ' phrase is strictly a militia term."
"Bearing arms" and other colloquialisms are not rooted in military, but in the parlance of the day. In 1685, James II forbade Protestants from "bearing arms" even as he permitted Catholics to bear arms, illegally. It was his desire to return England to the Catholic Church. Needless to say, his reign was short and he was overthrown in the Glorious Revolution. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 make similar references. With regard to Protestants, the EBoR, specifically, states that Protestants shall have the right to bear arms for their own defence.
"IFthey wanted INDIVIDUALS to protect and defend each other, they could easily have written in this."
- nobrainmass, The Left Bullies the NRA, 26 December 2012
So sayeth one unfamiliar with the Federalist Papers, the minutes of the Constitutional Convention, and the writings of the Founding Fathers. Put simply: They did.
The Second Amendment states:
"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."
"NO FREEMAN SHALL EVER BE DEBARRED THE USE OF ARMS."
- Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, 1776
"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
- Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honour with all that's good."
- George Washington, First President of the United States
"TO PRESERVE LIBERTY, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE WHOLE BODY OF THE PEOPLE ALWAYS POSSESS ARMS and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, American Statesman, 1788
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in their government."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The great object is that every man be armed...EVERYONE WHO IS ABLE MAY HAVE A GUN."
- Patrick Henry, American Patriot
"And that the SAID CONSTITUTION BE NEVER CONSTRUED TO AUTHORISE CONGRESS to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; OR TO PREVENT THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, FROM KEEPING THEIR OWN ARMS; …"
- Samuel Adams, Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, 20 August 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in OUR OWN HANDS?"
- Patrick Henry, American Patriot
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation..(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
- James Madison, the author of the Constitution, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
"… the people are CONFIRMED BY THE NEXT ARTICLE IN THEIR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR THEIR PRIVATE ARMS."
- Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 18 June 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2 Article on the Bill of Rights
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable CITIZENS, from KEEPING THEIR OWN ARMS..."
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-hei