In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

militia

jetjet Member Posts: 543 ✭✭✭✭
edited December 2001 in General Discussion
Does anyone else know a nice friendly militia to support? Preferably one that is not overrun with federal agent provaceteurs.... I mean federal informants. A sane one with their head screwed on straight. Not one of the crazy ones.
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • jetjet Member Posts: 543 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    A few weeks ago a freind of mine told me of a guy asking him if he wanted to join a militia.I said I thought it was illegal,I looked,according to wa. state law it is, but the 2nd has it as an integral part???No state law can eclipse federal law.How can this be.?confused.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • IconoclastIconoclast Member Posts: 10,515 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    There are several areas in which the Federal gov't specifically or tacitly allows state law to place restrictions on individuals which are not present in Federal law. Look, for example, at the firearms restrictions in NY. And don't forget the Tenth Amendment, which is honored in the breach more often than not since the days of FDR - reserving those rights not enumerated to the Federal gov't to the states. In the recent Emerson case, much of the defendant's appeal was based on the Second Amendment, although I believe the target was Federal rather than state law (?). One of the core arguments about the various restrictions imposed on firearms owners is over the definition of 'militia' as the term is used in the Constitution. That is the subject of many lengthy and detailed papers which are far beyond my ability to summarize for this Board or any casual discussion. I suspect, however, that the WA statute is based on a definition which in some way characterizes 'militia' as an undesirable paramilitary organization or private army. Don't feel bad about the confusion - with 20,000 laws regulating ownership and use of firearms, most people are, including those charged with enforcing those laws.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • cowboy62cowboy62 Member Posts: 70 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    iconoclast.....Very well put!Cowboy
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • LowriderLowrider Member Posts: 6,587
    edited November -1
    Jet: To which Washington State law are you referring?
    Lord Lowrider the LoquaciousMember:Secret Select Society of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets She was only a fisherman's daughter,But when she saw my rod she reeled.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • turboturbo Member Posts: 820 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Any law passed at the state level and interperted to be pro state,anti federal law, will stand as long is it remains unchalleged by the citizenry, in Federal Courts, especially with regard to it's constitutionality. The federal government will not arbitrarily challenge state laws, unless the law expressly contradicts the ratified state backed federally created statutes.For instance, every state that has entered the union, has ratified the Constitution together with the amendments as the supreme law of the land, and has sworn allegiance to uphold and support it's contents. For a state to create a law contrary to, say, the 2d amendement stating; "a blind person shall not be eligible to own a gun, since he is not able to safely handle a weapon in light of his disability". Should and would bring on an imediate, federal government challenge, as the 2d amendment is very clear about the state's inability to create such a law as it is obviosly contrary to the Constituion.On the other hand, since the 10th amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".The Militia is expressly placed under the comand of the President in Article II, Section 2 wherein it states, " The President shall be Comander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States. ...." Thereby, establishing a need for a readied Militia by every state.Many persons have argued that the Federal Services today, are the Militia, this cannot be for the Militia as defined by it's mere existence upon winning the US independence and at the writing and ratification of the Constitution was along with a Continental Army, made up of the citizenry, with no selective process criteria necessary to join, no tests were given, no qualifications or minimum requirements were required the Militia members, there was no age discremination, as established today.Every state has a duty, to raise and maintain a Militia, almost every state considers their Militias to be the respective State National Guard units, however, this has never been challenged by the citizenry nor has the qualifications to whether the National Guard meets the standard established for defining whether Militia spoken of in the Constitution, is the same entity as the National Guard. Because of the process and it's prequalifying prerequisites to join must be met, it might successfully challenged in a Federal Court.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Judge DreadJudge Dread Member Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    In the future you will have 5 choices....Elite, Slave ,Stool pigeon ,mafia,gang or Militia member ......
    Ignis Natura Renovatur Integram
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.