Federal firearms law pre-empting state law based on an amendment authored for the explicit purpose of shielding states from federal regulation in this area is truly wild. Yet, it’s just the level of spit and scotch tape argumentation that the Supreme Court eats up these days.
Which is all to say that these New York regulations are almost certainly doomed.
What would round three of NY gun regulations look like if the Supreme Court unceremoniously trashes these? Albany probably lacks the political will, but I’m still waiting on some state to make firearm possession licenses contingent upon joining the National Guard. Make exceptions for law enforcement who are already working for the state and its municipalities, but otherwise mandate that everyone with a legal gun perform the service to the state envisioned by the Second Amendment. There’s a lot of good that could be done with an extra crop of folks volunteering for the state one weekend a month and two weeks in the summer! And if someone lacks the mental stability to serve in the state forces, they don’t get to keep their gun because they aren’t able to contribute to the militia.
The Supreme Court has mostly written “A well regulated Militia” out of the Second Amendment, despite that text forming the whole first half of the Amendment, but some state should just make the Court come right out and admit that they’ve abandoned all fidelity to the text.
— Joe Patrice in Lawyer Challenging NY Gun Regulations Accidentally Says Quiet Part Out Loud
Kinda like sayin, “if you want to express your opinion, you should join the media”!
Actually I think he had “must” and not “should” in mind.
The state controlled media!
Pravda or Izvestia?
Is CNN, is Newsy, is Fox
Actually, that’s a good example. Today everyone with an opinion and an intranet connection if part of the media. Just like their free speech rights are not subject to prior government restraint the people’s right to self defense is not restrained.
“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” – George Mason
In other words, everyone is the militia. No “national guard” joining required.
You’re welcome Joe Patrice.
It matters not and seemingly you don’t understand why. The Constitution is not, and can never be used as, a limit upon the People. It is a limit upon Government only. So please stop using this argument because it supports the left’s demented think.
I’m not following as to how/why your comment is relevant to Anonymous’ point. He quoted George Mason’s famous statement, then provided a concise explanation that everyone is the militia (even U.S. Code recognizes to this day all adult citizens aged 17-1/2 thru 45 as being Militia).
Your retort that he somehow doesn’t understand because…the Constitution?…that he didn’t mention or even infer?
I don’t think he meant to reply directly to Anonymous.
Question,
I’m not following is exactly Anonymous’ problem, and apparently yours. The entire discussion about the militia means one is arguing on the terms of the anti-gun left and not in reality. The premise is that the Bill of Rights may be used as a limit upon the People. That is false. Anonymous’ post gives in to that fallacy. When presenting a valid argument against gun control we MUST NOT use their terms and discuss the ridiculous. The entire “militia” argument is nothing but a strawman and any discussion on that topic is useless.
Rad – Yes I did.
He’s not talking about the Constitution as such, he’s referring to 10 U.S. Code § 246.
Let some home invader make little joe patrice their batch and see if his attitude changes before his under draws need changing….joe patrice needs to come down from his perch and reside in the real world or take his backdoor Gun Control and go pound sand.
Federal law defines the unorganized militia as all able bodied male citizens (or those seeking citizenship) from 17-45. So all American men are either active militia or “retired” militia.
Also, since sexual discrimination is illegal, women should qualify as well, and probably would, if someone challenged this in the courts.
What’s funny is in my state South Carolina all law-abiding adults over the age of 18 are considered part of the South Carolina militia They just passed a law that made us not subject to overreaching federal government legislation of firearms.
“A well-regulated militia” is not a limiting clause in the Second Amendment, it is an explanatory clause. The clause that describes whose right shall not be infringed states “the people,” not “the militia” or “people in the militia.”
That’s why the whole “the militia is the whole of the people” angle is wrong-headed, it is irrelevant.
the words ‘well regulated’ at the time it was used, meant well maintained or in working order as it pertained to weapons and accessories, ammo, GP etc.
language drifts
just sayin’
Huh? What he meant is that since the whole of the People are the Militia, that the People cannot be disarmed. He was not suggesting that active service in the militia was a prerequisite to owning or bearing arms.
Bottom line is that since the MILITIA are the key to “the security of a free state” the PEOPLE of tht free state MUST and DO retain their God-given right to arms.
Since a militia that is well organised, trained, skilled, equipped, run, practiced is more effective than one which is not, the Article simply includes the words “well regulated” to support that concept.
Please note, and throw up into the faces of the disarmament crowd, the FACT that it remains with the PEOPLE who form the militia to arm themselves so that when it is time tofunction as the militia the arms are already in possession of the people.
Tje “right” is for the people to be armed, not for the people to form militia, drill, train, equip, etc.
Diagramming the long sentence will help to clarify its meaning. But far too few people are possessed of a functional knowledge of te English tongue, even fewer than are ossessed of a usble and functional knowledge of the use of arms.
I am not convinced that ” . . . the whole “the militia is the whole of the people” angle is wrong-headed, it is irrelevant” is true.
It is clear from the debate over ratifying the Constitution that the 2A mostly had to do with the debate over Congress’ power to establish a standing army vs. the Anti-Federalists’ insistence in relying upon “the militia”. And, moreover, the constitution of “the militia”. Would it be a “select militia” composed of only those individuals who supported the established regime? Or, “the whole people”.
The text of the 2A resolves that question. The right to arms runs to “the People” not to “a well regulated militia”.
What is that militia referred to in Article I Section 8? Is it “the whole people”? Or, is it those upon whom Congress imposes a DUTY to perform militia service? If the latter, then isn’t it the case that the Article 1 Section 8 militia is – to a greater/lesser extent – a select militia?
Traditionally, and under present law, Congress imposes militia duty upon only men (with one insignificant exception.) Very well, so if the Progressives insist that only men may keep and bear arms then Congress or a state may deprive women of the right to arms. Is that really what the Progressives want?
If Congress can “select” only men, then could they select only registered Democrats? Or select only those over 60 years of age? Or otherwise circumscribe the composition of the militia such that it would fail to serve its intended purpose?
The only reasonable reading of the 2A in light of the debate over the original militia and standing army clauses is that “the People” was intended to include the broadest cross-section of the People conceivable. Women would have equal protection of their right to arms. Children capable of using arms in self-defense and defense of community would have a right to arms. The elderly, though poorly fit for the rigor of military duty would have a right to arms to defend themselves against Indians, pirates, tyrants.
It is the People who have the right to arms so that they can perform the function of the militia irrespective of whether Congress chooses to impose the duty of militia service upon them.
Warfare in the 18th century depended upon large groups of “well regulated” troops able to maneuver on the battlefield. Remember, in those days men moved to battle in horizontal envelopment, not vertical envelopment. Only cavalry and officers rode horses. The ranks marched. Marching to battle is most efficient if the ranks are marching in column. However, once on the battlefield, the ranks present the most effective battle formation if they are on line, four ranks deep. First rank fires, falls back and second rank advances, fires, etc. By the time the fourth rank has fired and is falling back the first rank is loaded and on line again. Doing this required officers, NCOs and other grades to know how to maneuver. When I was in the Marine Corps we learned two forms of close order drill. “Platoon right front on to line” is the command given to a platoon to change from a column formation into an on-line formation, Not taught these days because massed fire is not conducted standing up and falling back as the next rank advances. If you remember what used to be fourth or fifth grade U.S. history the German general, Von Steuben taught the irregular at Valley Forge close order drill so that they could match the Brits and Hessians on the battlefield as “regulars” as opposed to the irregular battle formations they had been accustomed to. You can still see those close order drill maneuvers at the Sunset Parade during the summer months at the Marine Barracks at Eighth and Eye in D.C.
Even today, the reason there is advanced infantry training is that you just don’t hand a rifle to a grunt, tell him “The bad guys are that way” and turn him loose. We did that in Korea with all the Army folks that were rounded up from offices and supply yards and sent to the front in Korea. My cousin enlisted for the financial field and had never had a rifle in his hand in the army when Korea broke out He was handed a rifle, pack with 782 gear and sent to Korea to head of the North Koreans. He was together with many other grunts who had never had a rifle before. My cousin was lucky. He had been a gang banger before the term was popular and that was the reason he was in the army. It was the army or reform school until he was 21. He chose the army. At that time if you enlisted for a non combat MOS, you didn’t get infantry training in the army, Didn’t want to waste the money on “useless” training. Might still be that way. The Marine Corps’ mantra was “every man an infantry man” and so even though I was a Remington Raider or an Underwood demolition man for my eight years, I still got infantry training along with every other Marine. Pays off when they round up the clerks and jerks to man the frontlines because there has been a break through and it’s every man to the fighting holes.
don’t think he read Mason’s quote about everyone being part of the militia…
Meh, I’m already a member of the unorganized militia.
I’ll pas.
my uncle was in the national guard…a group that can be made part of the federal army at any time…he wound up in the Battle of the Bulge…
We are in deep trouble if the CA National Guard is looking for 80+ year olds to beef up their ranks. If geezers my age get drafted you know the Chinese are between the Farallons and the Golden Gate Bridge or have already landed at the Port of Los Angeles. But, hey, get four days pay for drinking coffee and b.s.ing in the office on drill weekends. The only reason I didn’t reenlist in the reserves was because I could see another Korean War heating up in a pissant southeast asian country where LBJ promised he would not send American boys. Thank God we didn’t elect Barry Goldwater. He would have sent Marines to Vietnam, bombed Hanoi and mined Haiphong Harbor. Thank God we elected LBJ who kept us out of being bogged down in a land war in southeast asia.
In case you don’t recognize it, this post is loaded with heavy sarcasm,
Old Lefty, God I hope so!
Why is the People having arms to counteract a government force monopoly a hard concept to understand?
Shush. Be quiet. And maybe you’ll hear the left’s heads exploding. Silly you.
On the contrary. They understand it very well.
“Why is the People having arms to counteract a government force monopoly a hard concept to understand?”
Because, they are literally fascists.
Literally, FASCISTS. With all that implies.
They cannot understand why anyone would not want what they want.
In their twisted and demented minds, WE are the ones keeping their utopia from happening. WE are the ones impeding ‘progress’.
They really haven’t said the real “quiet part out loud” yet, and that is, that we must be eliminated. They can’t grab at the gold ring yet until we are gone.
They need a ‘Final Solution’ to the problem they have, us. After all, (according to them) we’re evil, racist scum with *zero* redeeming qualities. As far as they are concerned, the world will be a far better place without us in it. All they need is someone to make it so.
That’s the real “Quiet part out loud”… 🙁
Geoff, Some members of the left did say that out loud way back in the 1960’s. At the time they estimated they would have to eliminate about 25% of the population to reach their desired level of control. That would be about 75 million people today.
They are openly working toward that goal with their constant demonizing of white people (men in particular). Divide and conquer works. Look at Russa in the early 1900’s leading to the Soviet Union and Germany in the 1930’s leading to the Holocaust. Divide the population, brain wash them into hating the chosen group and let the killing begin.
Be Prepared !!!
One other aspect of that mind set was a permanent reduction of the planet populace. Guy I worked with openly espoused reducing the human population to no more than 10 million hunter-gatherers. This was to repair the damage that we humans had done to the environment. Nice guy but dumb as hell.
Geoff…Defining Gun Control by its history of rot is the-part not being said…The silence among those who claim to be on point defending the 2A is deafening.
nothing in the second requires you to be part of a militia…but it does give you that option…if necessary…and when and where necessary…interpret that well-regulated part to be simply law-abiding…
If Joe is really a lawyer, he is the dumbest one on the planet. His entire argument revolves around the erroneous idea that the Bill of Rights is, and can be used as, a limit upon the People. It cannot. The Constitution is a limit upon Government only. All rights belong to the People.
AMENDMENT IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
AMENDMENT X
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.
Also the preamble to the bill of rights clearly communicates that fact:
“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
Did I also see him try to use the states rights argument on limiting part of the bill of rights that is incorporated into all states regardless of their laws?
He doesn’t seem like much of a lawyer.
But then those that argue against our Constitution can’t be very smart.
Off topic but Gunsmoke is just coming on.
Contains a disclaimer(?)
“This program contains outdated cultural depictions. Viewer discretion advised.
Pathetic!
Bonanza has the same “warning” disclaimer.
LMFAO
Upside down and backwards. This is such a twisted mess that does not understand reality.
uh…lol, it would be illegal!
If you want a pickup truck, I hope you like Flat Dark Earth paintjobs.
This game can be played on sooooo many levels
Very telling that the vast majority of the anti-gun articles linked herein have no comments section. ATL doesn’t even have a link to email the author. Clearly these folks can’t deal with spirited salient debate. Pansies….
“Very telling that the vast majority of the anti-gun articles linked herein have no comments section”
To a fascist, dissent is not allowed, ‘citizen’… 🙁
To a fascist, dissent is not allowed, ‘peasant’… 🙁
There, I fixed it for you.
Only thing worse to an totalitarian propagandist than being told they are wrong is being shown that they are wrong.
Yahoo closed their famous comments section in 2020 because people were calling out BLM/antifa/the Puppet, etc. It looks like they reopened it last year. I remember when CNN had a comments section before Trump was elected. I think it was in 2020, that the Wall Street Journal stopped having a comments section on all articles. Their excuse was they suddenly didn’t have time to moderate all article comments. Yeah right.
Multiple narratives to control re crime politics pandemic (reality of risk by age as well as effective treatments) vaccine efficacy/reactions, and various mandates regarding the above. A open and free discussion puts a hurting on desired outcomes of conversations when seizures of power is the goal.
they do seem to be avoiding debate on the subject…”comments on this article have been disabled” is all to common in the liberal press…
I am a retired service member. I have neither the desire or physical capacity to join the Guard. This seems to be a class action lawsuit in the making.
Thank you for your service Sailor.
If I understand things correctly, a retired service member is still a service member. Inactive reserve, right? You’re covered no matter what the idiots mandate.
That is correct. We, I’m retired USAF, are subject to recall at any time. Upon receiving my retirement orders there was a sentence that said, “retain your uniforms”. I still have mine.
And nowhere within the DD-214 does it utter a single word about relieving you of your Oath.
I have my uniforms too and they still fit 10 years later. I thought recall was limited until age of 60. I don’t care one way or the other though…I’m still in decent shape and ready to go if the letter arrives.
I’m retired Air Force, 30 years.
Upon retirement you are released to ‘inactive reserve’ or ‘retired reserve’ depending on your status in a critical field or how the branch determines it. For example, when I retired my AFSC position was deemed critical because I had criminal investigation specialties in the Security Police (now called Security Forces) AFSC that were critical, so I was released to inactive reserve. But I reached 30 years and had to go, 30 years is as long as you can stay (30 years or age 60 – which ever comes first – unless given special consideration to extend it). At age 60 though you are released to ‘retired reserve’. Both are subject to recall under certain conditions.
Retired is never truly discharged, its why they have a reserve component for it (retired reserve). Yes, your oath still applies if you are retired.
Do you need to keep your uniforms if you retire and are in retired reserve? Yes and No. Years ago it was a requirement, and it still sort of is because if you are recalled you are required to report with at least one uniform, and depending on the situation, believe it or not, a firearm because retired reserve would only be called up if the enemy was at the gate and its the last ditch effort line of defense. I go into ‘retired reserve’ next week.
(Note: A members of Air Force Security Forces are Air Force Security Police. If you have at least 15 years of service (sometimes less), and honorably discharged or retired, as Security Police you qualify as federal law enforcement for a federal concealed carry permit under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) – in case any of you are here.)
What if you are too old for service? What if you’re young but have a handicap? What if the guard is full and cannot accept any more recruits?
Where is the tax money to train and equip and pay and feed these extra members coming from?
I would have one hell of a time struggling to get into my old Marine Corps uniform. I had a 28″ waist upon getting out in 1963 after 8 years. Sad to say that svelte young Marine no longer has a 28″ waist. Even if I starved all the fat off, the baggy skin that remained would probably still be bigger than 28″.
Who here is surprised at the Communist lawyer’s desire for an all powerful government that gets to decide what rights you need and when you are allowed to exercise them?
You noticed that, eh?
For anyone who may have missed it, the author’s position is simple: the only people who should have firearms are people in service of the Almighty State.
As others touched upon above, according to the author’s mindset, the only people who should be able to exercise Free Speech are people in service of the Almighty State.
What could possibly go wrong when we are only able to legally exercise our “rights” in service of the Almighty State? Answer: go ask the people of North Korea, Iran, China, Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela. Oh wait, you cannot go ask the people in those nations because those nations will not let you in for said interviews–and certainly will not let you out if you somehow managed to enter those nations and conduct said interviews.
“Answer: go ask the people of North Korea, Iran, China, Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela.”
Actual FASCIST nations.
Imagine…Communism – Babylon Bee
Lennon was such a lying sack of sheet by that time….
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Yeah just try to distribute Lennon’s intellectual possessions (songs) without paying and see how that goes for you.
Why do they always read the second amendment backwards? If you are going to write an article and have it published you should at least have the ability to read in the first place.
Besides that, this fool needs to learn that the national guard is not the militia.
Lets apply this sort of rule to any other right and see how well this guy likes it. You want to vote? Better join the national guard. Want to have a jury trial? National Guard. Want to publish something like this waste of an article? Join the National Guard.
Also, this is the sort of moron that would say even without the national guard that people should need to be a member of a militia to have guns. We saw how well that went for the people in Michigan. The glowies couldn’t come in fast enough or in enough quantity.
Andrew Lias,
The root problem is not a reading skills nor reading comprehension problem. The true root problem is people who embrace destructive government. People who embrace destructive government will present information any way that they think will somehow move people to support them. Truth and accuracy are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is “winning” by any means necessary.
“People who embrace destructive government will present information any way that they think will somehow move people to support them. Truth and accuracy are irrelevant.”
Example – Who is running around pointing fingers and calling us racists?
Answer, the actual racists who tell us voter ID laws are wrong because blacks don’t know how to find the DMV for an official picture ID…
Actually, I rather like the idea of universal conscription. When you turn 18, you sign up for military service. Get out of high school, off you go to boot camp. National Guard, Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Border Patrol, I don’t much care – you sign up for military or at least paramilitary service. Everyone goes to boot camp, everyone serves 6 months (or more) then you go into reserve status for six years. And, everyone gets trained in small arms use. Notice, I didn’t say “men”, I said “everyone”. Boot camp, and six months service minimum, then reserve status.
That covers this idiot’s suggestion that you have to be a Guardsman to keep weapons.
It certainly works for Isreal and Switzerland.
I’d go a little further, though.
We teach driver’s ed in high school, along with sex ed. Why not Firearms Ed? Many high schools in the 1950’s/60’s had high school shooting teams.
“We teach driver’s ed in high school, along with sex ed. Why not Firearms Ed?”
Thanks, 300BLk fan, a *perfect* segue for something I wanted to bring up!
Currently, in Leftist Scum ™ controlled school districts, if a young student wants to ‘transition’ to the other sex via medical means (hormones, even surgery), the school district does it without the parents knowledge. They actively HIDE IT FROM THE PARENTS. As young as 5 or 8 years young.
I say, turnabout is fair play.
Conservative school districts can offer safe gun handling and use on gun ranges in school basements, much like what was common in the pre-1960s era. This instruction will be provided without parental knowledge for students who might fear their parent’s reaction if they found out. In secret, just like the sex-changers want.
Is that not a *deliciously* evil response to the Leftist Scum ™?
Do to them, what they want to do to us. Create secret gun lovers, right under their noses.
Don’t get mad, get even… 🙂
Wow, I love your idea! “Keep it secret, keep it safe!” and “The enemy is always watching!”
At least in SW NH, schools have dropped driver’s ed due to budget cuts. Result is fewer, expensive instructors with long wait lists, so a lot of teens just wait until they turn 18 and can get their license w/o passing driver’s ed.
Late 70’s the rifle team members carried their guns on the bus and then to their lockers and then next door to the national guard armory rifle range.
Today that would cause 3 different lockdowns.
Paul,
I would be fine with something like that if I halfway trusted our government not to indoctrinate our children into their current woke trajectory. Okay, sure, the “kids” are 18 years old. They’re still very susceptible to indoctrination. There’s a reason the military wants young people. It isn’t just for physical capability.
There is a solid reason the initial phases of boot is sometimes referred to internally as “indoc”.
Mandatory conscription? So you imagine that government that lies its people into multiple wars and spies on its own people as if they were the enemy should be granted even MORE power over the citizens’ liberty?
Stockholm syndrome.
A robust transportation system being necessary to the prosperity of a free economy, the right of the people to keep and maintain cars shall not be infringed.
Joe the flawyer: “Gotta be a taxi driver to own a car! Nyah, nyah, nyah!”
Already done my hitch in uncle sam’s canoe club. That should cover me for life.
OK, Ms. Patrice, but that also includes state issued weapons, such as full-auto firearms. Your move…
Mark 19 would be fun for range use.
Years back in the rec.guns newsgroup, a Filipino guy had a micro-Glock converted to full-auto. (It was legal there, at the time).
He admitted it was un-controllable to fire, but a lot of fun at the range…
these things are turning up everywhere..and .ATF has no answer….
mi·li·tia
/məˈliSHə/
noun
noun: militia; plural noun: militias
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
“creating a militia was no answer to the army’s manpower problem”
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
historical
(in the US) all able-bodied citizens eligible by law to be called on to provide military service supplementary to the regular armed forces.
Me thinks that Patrice doesn’t know what the definition of the word “militia” is….
militia = We The People
can simply be a group of people temporarily banding together to defend their neighborhood…something I actually experienced in the sixties…it was kind of reassuring, actually…..
I pretty sure that anyone willing to take up a gun and defend the nation is considered part of the militia in regards to the 2nd amendment.
Actually, it’s better than that.
The 1903 Militia Act defines two forms of militia – the organized and unorganized. The unorganized is every able-bodied male 17-45 not affiliated with the Federal (US Army/Navy/etc) or State (National Guard) military.
Yeah, age discrimination, gender discrimination. But it’s black and white law.
I just figured everyone that wasn’t active/guard/reserves was the inactive militia. Hope they never have to activate…
People like Patrice never give up beating on dead horses.
they’ll adopt any premise to take your gun away…so they can feel “safe”….they regard any gun owner as a threat….
And they absolutely should because that is what the second amendment is is for, taking care of tyrant wannabes!
I am proud to live in a country where we do not ignore the opinions of the illiterate.
“Patrice: If You Want a Gun, You Should Have to Join the National Guard”
If you want a computer or phone to exercise your first amendment right you should be employed by and subject to ‘use’ by a government (e.g. state, federal). After all, the first amendment does not say you should not be subjected to such.
“but otherwise mandate that everyone with a legal gun perform the service to the state envisioned by the Second Amendment.”
Uhhhh did you not get the memo about the SCOTUS having already ruled that exercise of the second amendment is an individual right and not connected to (an obligation for) service in a militia. You can’t read?
This person is a complete moron.
And how about those people who did put on a uniform and serve their country for a good chunk of their lives, 20 – 30 years or maybe less in some cases? Did they “earn” their right to have a gun or did that right vanish for them when they left military service?
Its people like this author that makes it seem OK to strangle them to put them out of their misery of stupid.
I wonder how many other groups, cliques and movements pulled a 180 this quickly.
Mere decades ago the left was all “fight the power!” and “down with the man!” now they’re all “obey the state!” and “give your very soul over to the corporations!”
I guess the right went from bible thumpers to populists. That happened just as quickly.
They didn’t change – if the state that existed decades ago had been a communist one the left wouldn’t have needed to do any protesting to fight the power – in their narrow, little minds they would’ve BEEN the power.
Unfortunately the right hasn’t really changed either – we still don’t know how to use the political system when we stumble through an election to a win.
Unfortunately exactly correct.
the National Guard?…watch “Southern Comfort”…it’s on you tube…
Apparently, Patrice has not read Heller, McDonald or Bruen decisions ?
Apparently, Patrice cant read and is on drugs.
They appear to be on big lie logic of repeating what they want to be true until the weak willed begin to believe it.
another college educated idiot that doesn’t know anything.
As Bugs Bunny would have said, “what a maroon!”
The Lefto-fascists do not recognise what “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” means.
Draw the parallel present in the 1st, “Congress shall make no law”. Matters not, they ignore the obvious as a matter of course, but do it with witnesses where it will ring home with the others.
Well, first of all, what if I am older than the age limit to be in the Guard? Are you saying I have No RIGHT to Bear Arms? The concept written by this so-called lawyer, is poor at best. Time to find a new job . . .
While it’s fun to mock idiots like Ms. (pardon me for assuming xir gender) Patrice, but keep in mind that the idiocy they spout is often the ONLY discussion of the 2A people like MinorLiar, dacian the demented, Prince Albert the Ponce, and jsled ever hear. To them, it’s all about the narrative. They have no idea that “the militia” is, basically, “we, the people”. Their primary school English teachers should be ashamed, never having taught them what a “prefatory clause” was.
Of course, then you get COMPLETE idiots, like MinorLiar, who argue that Article I, Section 8 explicitly authorized universal gun control.
Folks, when we deal with the anti-gun, Leftist/fascist crowd?? We ain’t dealing with future brain surgeons or rocket scientists. As a quick scan of any dacian post will conclusively demonstrate.
Where IS our resident idiot, anyway?? I would have thought he’d have been all over this with his brainless blather.
“I’m still waiting on some state to make firearm possession licenses contingent upon joining the National Guard.”
Licenses are unconstitutional as well. Did you miss that memo?
All you need to know is that “Above the Law”, where this article appeared, is published by Elie Mystal, that left wing loon who impersonates a Q Tip on MSNBC.
https://youtu.be/nlwo3G1LLWo
He makes a good point about the Right relying on Federal law for gun rights but drawing back to “State’s rights” arguments for other political stances but otherwise this is just ahistorical/ableist horseshit from Joe Patrice.
Dear Joe. The National Guard did not exist at the time of the founding.
Try again.
I think dont think alcoholics should be allowed to consume liquor unless they have a motorized vehicle.
their drivers license doubles as a ‘drink n drive’ permit.
You have to drive if you’re too drunk to walk. You might fall and hit your head. Serious injuries that would cost society in medical expenses and lost production.
If you care at all about the greater good of society you will drive instead of walk when drunk.
Is that you Ted Kennedy?
When I hear that argument about military service to own a firearm , and that the 2A states it as fact, I remind them of what Thomas Jefferson said:
“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” ― Thomas Jefferson
I refer them to the Federalists Papers for more insight.
Then I refer them to the debates of the reconstruction Amendments and of the arguments about conferring citizenship on freedmen and the right to bear arms. Chief Justice Taney stated that citizenship for freedmen ” would give such persons of the negro race the full liberty of speech, to hold public meetings upon political affairs and TO KEEP AND CARRY ARMS wherever they went” This proves the Founders and the government believed the 2A applied to all citizens. Not as a aspect of military service, but as a practice of citizenship.
Then they say in reply ” but..but..but…”
‘If you like guns just joint the military’.
A another classic hot take by leftoid morons that don’t understand anything about this subject.
Ok Patrice. So what about those of us who served full 20 plus year careers in the military? Or are retired law enforcement? Are we denied our rights when we retire?
How about those considered as inactive reserve or retired reserve?
The historic definition of Militia, when the BOR was ratified, was, Any free man of military age.
In current language I would put it as, Any person not otherwise prohibited from service, or legally prohibited from possessing firearms.
Did my time in the Reg Army and the Ohio Nat Guard. I have guns, but I also have the Constitution it is well regulated just like a clock. Even a broken clock is right 2 times a day, politicians and lefty lawyers not so much.
Compare the “US Bill of Rights” with the “English Bill of Rights” – from 1689 – which was in force in the colonies prior to the US revolution.
English Bill of Rights:
“That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;”
US Bill of Rights:
“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.”
Note the last four words of each.
Search for the English Bill of Rights at: avalon.law.yale.edu
Compare both “Rights” documents – similar, but the US version brings in the concept that “all men are created equal”.
“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.”
The author of the original article misses the target – IMO, the militia would be organized by by the local people. That’s a great idea, like-minded gun owners banded together to protect their neighborhoods from government over-reach and intrusion. After all, the Bill of Rights limits government, not the people’s rights to bear arms and public assembly. Maybe that’s what the firearms community needs – LOCAL MILITIAS ! Progressive Liberals would soil themselves, LOL.
So, I go to the recruiter and say I want to join. They say no, “you’re too old” so, I say age discrimination because you won’t let me arm myself and the only way I can, I’m not eligible. This will never work. These people never think things through. Not surprised.
Patrice’s statement only works if you mistakenly believe that the 2nd Amendment is one clause, or a main clause followed by a secondary, less influential clause. Madison’s original proposed amendments proves that belief as wrong. Madison wrote four distinct proposals that were combined and trimmed down to form the two distinct clauses of the 2nd. The first that the State’s Militia would keep the Federal government in check. The second, that We the People would keep the State(s) in check. A State government can become just as Tyrannical as a Federal government (example California and New York). When the people no longer have a say in their State’s governance and are being oppressed, who is to redress the wrongs? The armed citizens of the individual States that’s who.
Besides, thanks to various acts and legislation, the National Guard is just an extension of the US Military. It’s independence in severe question.
The left has also forgotten a clause of the 1st Amendment, that being, “nor preventing the free exercise of.”