Supreme Court Rules 2A For Militia (AKA National Guard) Only...

1296 Views 22 Replies 12 Participants Last post by moe mensale, Aug 14, 2016

Wegahe

Discussion Starter · Aug 11, 2016

Ok so not really! BUT... What if it does at some point happen.

the Democratic Party has long stood on the 2A being intended only for the Militia (now called the National Guard) and not for the general population. I am putting fourth a possible downside to that.

1. The police are not a part of the National Guard. They are only citizens with a badge.
2. We can expand this to the Sheriffs Office as also not the National Guard.
3. The DEA
4. The FBI
5. Private Security services
6. The Secret Service
7. The US Marshals.
8. All 50 State Patrols
9. The IRS
10. X National Guard Members...

Who knows how many others would be disarmed by such a ruling. If they were not disarmed a Constitutional Amendment would be required to repeal the standing army restriction. Without such an amendment allowing them to keep and bear arms would violate an article of the Constitution.

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

Malum Prohibitum

· #2 · Aug 11, 2016

Nothing much would change.

NY would still have its current laws. So would Hawaii.

GA would still have its current laws.

As demographics change, GA might change.

Way on down the road things might get more restrictive.

In summary, such a ruling would not disarm anybody at all. It is just a ruling saying no 2A. That does not automatically mean guns are illegal. A legislature has to pass a law saying so.

See less See more

Squid

· #3 · Aug 11, 2016

Malum Prohibitum said:
Nothing much would change.

NY would still have its current laws. So would Hawaii.

GA would still have its current laws.

As demographics change, GA might change.

Way on down the road things might get more restrictive.

In summary, such a ruling would not disarm anybody at all. It is just a ruling saying no 2A. That does not automatically mean guns are illegal. A legislature has to pass a law saying so.

Exactly. Just like the 18th Amendment meant nothing until the Volstead Act.

phaed

· #4 · Aug 11, 2016

it's a moot point. the militia is every swingin #$%^ anyway.

10 U.S. Code Â§ 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia areâ€"
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85â€"861, Â§ 1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103â€"160, div. A, title V, Â§ 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)

45_Fan

· #5 · Aug 12, 2016

A future SCOTUS could overturn Slaughterhouse too...If we're fishing, let's go big.

Wegahe

Discussion Starter · #6 · Aug 12, 2016

phaed said:
it's a moot point. the militia is every swingin #$%^ anyway.

Actually that is the point of my hypo. The Democratic party has for a very long time maintained that the 2A only protects the right to keep and bear arms of the Militia and the National Guard IS the Militia. I am not talking about the way it is intended but the way the Democratic Party has twisted it to mean. With enough liberal politically motivated justices this could be the case in the very near future. If Hillary wins all it would take is for the DP to take control of the House and the Senate and the law would be a reality very quickly. Keep in mind there are more than enough RP RINO available that will side with them and sell the 2A down the river.

Wheedle

· #7 · Aug 12, 2016

Well, what about their armed security?

CoffeeMate

· #8 · Aug 12, 2016

Wegahe said:
The Democratic party has for a very long time maintained that the 2A only protects the right to keep and bear arms of the Militia and the National Guard IS the Militia.

But the National Guard isn't the ONLY Militia.

phaed

· #9 · Aug 12, 2016

Wegahe said:
With enough liberal politically motivated justices...

this has always been the case. it's not limited to the legislative branch. it's not limited to party. as long as you continue to give other people authority over you, you run the risk of them doing something you do not approve of.

AtlPhilip

· #10 · Aug 12, 2016

Wegahe said:
the Militia (now called the National Guard) and not for the general population.

Point of information - The militia is not merely the national guard.

10 U.S. Code Â§ 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia areâ€"
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Fallschirmjäger

· #11 · Aug 12, 2016

Even if the SC makes that decision, I think the Georgia Constitution may still have something to say about it.

Paragraph VIII. Arms, right to keep and bear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.

I'd think it would take a pretty good lawyer to argue that "the people" means one thing in the United States Constitution and another thing in the Georgia State Constitution.

CoffeeMate

· #12 · Aug 12, 2016

But the National Guard isn't the ONLY Militia.

The National Guard isn't even the only ORGANIZED militia.

gunsmoker

· #13 · Aug 12, 2016

The unorganized militia, federally defined per acts of Congress, is still too small of a body to say that the 2A applies only to it, and the National Guard / Reserve.

Age 17-45 is too restrictive. I'd say the 2A covers people aged 17 and up, unless somebody is senile. No upper age limit.
"Able bodied" is too restrictive. Even weak and feeble people can (and have) served in wartime, as observers manning a post.
People who can shoot can guard a position, even if they can't run. They can stand (or sit) in place and fight off the attackers.

And limiting the right to "males" only is absurd.
Regardless of federal statutory law from centuries ago, the constitution itself and its Bill of Rights does not say these rights are for men only.

CoffeeMate

· #14 · Aug 12, 2016

Something can also exist without there being any "enabling Federal legislation" behind it at all.

gunsmoker

· #15 · Aug 12, 2016

FallschirmjÃ¤ger said:
Even if the SC makes that decision, I think the Georgia Constitution may still have something to say about it.

I'd think it would take a pretty good lawyer to argue that "the people" means one thing in the United States Constitution and another thing in the Georgia State Constitution.

Yeah, our own Ga. Supreme Court "could" take the position that our state's constitution gives more protection than the federal one.

They could also bow down to feds and announce that no matter how much more restrictive the language is in our Georgia constitution, being solidly pro-citizen and suspicious of government power, THE BETTER PUBLIC POLICY CHOICE is to just go with the feds' interpretation for every level of government. That way, it's easier to train cops. One national standard for everybody. No confusing the poor LEO's by teaching them that some things that are OK for them to do under the federal constitution isn't OK by the Georgia constitution. Just make the federal one supreme.

Really. This has already happened, with regard to certain 4th Amendment issues.

AtlPhilip

· #16 · Aug 12, 2016

gunsmoker said:
Really. This has already happened, with regard to certain 4th Amendment issues.

Not just 4A issues. It's amazing how much of our law references code sets written by third parties, effectively making private corporations legislators without constituents.

CoffeeMate

· #17 · Aug 12, 2016

gunsmoker said:
THE BETTER PUBLIC POLICY CHOICE is to just go with the feds' interpretation for every level of government. That way, it's easier to train cops. One national standard for everybody. No confusing the poor LEO's by teaching them that some things that are OK for them to do under the federal constitution isn't OK by the Georgia constitution. Just make the federal one supreme.

:-k

'Prolly more efficient just to nationalize all LE / peace officers / investigators everywhere.

(Me stating that does not mean I am in favor of the notion)

68908

· #18 · Aug 12, 2016

Malum Prohibitum said:
Nothing much would change.

NY would still have its current laws. So would Hawaii.

GA would still have its current laws.

As demographics change, GA might change.

Way on down the road things might get more restrictive.

In summary, such a ruling would not disarm anybody at all. It is just a ruling saying no 2A. That does not automatically mean guns are illegal. A legislature has to pass a law saying so.

Great point

68908

· #19 · Aug 12, 2016

45_Fan said:
A future SCOTUS could overturn Slaughterhouse too...If we're fishing, let's go big.

Very true! Please! Love to see Marbury v. Madison get tossed too

68908

· #20 · Aug 12, 2016

phaed said:
this has always been the case. it's not limited to the legislative branch. it's not limited to party. as long as you continue to give other people authority over you, you run the risk of them doing something you do not approve of.

Truth bomb, I'm living that daily right now. I pay four times the amount of child support I'm legally supposed to pay and the judge refuses to change it. I will for the next 13 years unless I somehow get an non-corrupt judge somehow. I'll probably be living with my parents for the next 13 years all because of a corrupt judge. You don't even want to know what my ex uses all that money for, it ain't the kid, and it will just make you mad.

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.

Top