Here's what happens with your Castle Doctrine

[itsbob]

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia by the captain or commanding officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizens shall reside, and that within 12 months of the passing of this act. ...That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within 6 months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a and a knapsack [etc] ... and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service..and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets for arming the militia as herein required shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound. And every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.


Lets take a light jaunt back to 1792.. it was not an organized militia.. it wasn't the National Guard.. and nobody was trained or did one week-end a month..

EVERY male was a part of the militia..

 

[Bustem' Down]

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia by the captain or commanding officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizens shall reside, and that within 12 months of the passing of this act. ...That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within 6 months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a and a knapsack [etc] ... and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service..and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets for arming the militia as herein required shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound. And every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.


Lets take a light jaunt back to 1792.. it was not an organized militia.. it wasn't the National Guard.. and nobody was trained or did one week-end a month..

EVERY male was a part of the militia..

Oh yeah, back in the day, but now I'm willing to bet that not half the population would do anything.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Yes they did.


National Guard of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From that point on the militia's ceased to exist in the form they were in.



Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not quite. The Militia Act of 1903 did not replace "un-organized" militias and it was not an ammendment replacing trhe 2nd amendment's individual rights to keep and bear arms OR state militias.
It requires state ratification to replace or to reinterprate an Amendment, but even that aside , the National Guard Act did not replace state militias in toto and it does not nullify the individual rights.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Not quite. The Militia Act of 1903 did not replace "un-organized" militias and it was not an ammendment replacing trhe 2nd amendment's individual rights to keep and bear arms OR state militias.
It requires state ratification to replace or to reinterprate an Amendment, but even that aside , the National Guard Act did not replace state militias in toto and it does not nullify the individual rights.

I never said in nullified rights, only that the militias of the 1800's were gone, federalized and rolled into the Nat Guard.

 

[itsbob]

I never said in nullified rights, only that the militias of the 1800's were gone, federalized and rolled into the Nat Guard.

I don't think it made the act of 1792 obsolete did it??

Do any of them speak to the necessity of EVERY citizen to be armed? Do any of the following acts (post 1792) repeal that requirement?

 

[Bustem' Down]

I don't think it made the act of 1792 obsolete did it??

Do any of them speak to the necessity of EVERY citizen to be armed? Do any of the following acts (post 1792) repeal that requirement?

I'm looking. The Militia Act of 1792 was replaced by the Militia Act of 1903. 1903 made the state militias a deployable reserve force of the US Army, but I'm trying to find the wording.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Found it.

The act, also known as the Dick Act in honor of Dick, repealed the Militia Act of 1792 and divided the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, defined as all able-bodied men between 18 and 45, and the Organized Militia, defined as state units receiving federal support.

The Root Reforms and the National Guard

Everyone is in the Reserve Militia aka Selective Service. There's where you get your leaglity in ordering a Draft.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Still see nothing that supercedes the requirement of every able bodied man to be armed..

No, that was repealed when the Act of 1792 was repealed.

 

[itsbob]

True, but I think the act of 1792 puts the term militia into the context the founding fathers meant when they wrote the constitution.

 

[Novus Collectus]

I never said in nullified rights, only that the militias of the 1800's were gone, federalized and rolled into the Nat Guard.

First of all....by what authority (amendment/article) would that be? The STATES have the right to militia by even the anti's definition.

Second, the Second Amendment would have to be repealed in order for it to no longer to apply to the general militia and/or the People.

 

[Bustem' Down]

True, but I think the act of 1792 puts the term militia into the context the founding fathers meant when they wrote the constitution.

Oh absolutly, but at the same time, that idea of militia is antiquated.(sp?) Which is one of the reasons it was repealed. That being said, the repealing of 1792 does not negate any rights granted by the Constitution, it actually gives the people more freedom by allowing them to choose not to be armed.

 

[Bustem' Down]

First of all....by what authority (amendment/article) would that be? The STATES have the right to militia by even the anti's definition.

Second, the Second Amendment would have to be repealed in order for it to no longer to apply to the general militia and/or the People.

There is a state component of the National Gaurd which is not deployable as regular army (ie it cannot be called up and deployed to Iraq.) and likewise does not recieve federal funding. Like the Texas State Guard, run by the state, not the fed.

 

[Novus Collectus]

There is a state component of the National Gaurd which is not deployable as regular army (ie it cannot be called up and deployed to Iraq.) and likewise does not recieve federal funding. Like the Texas State Guard, run by the state, not the fed.

What you describe is what is an un-organized militia that is a component of something other than the 1903 act as I understand it, but that is besides the point.
The 1903 act did not replace the Second Amendment, it only supplanted part of the definition of the "Militia" under Artcle I Aection 8.

The Second Amendment addresses the state's rights to have militia's armed properly and it also says the right of the People to be armed must be also un-infringed.

 

[Larry Gude]

Hey...

...forestal;

You think they were after 'just a toaster' over at Taylors house?

 

[2ndAmendment]

General Sherman Kicks (Southern) Ass.

Hey, the 2nd amendment says that well regulated militias, like the kind they actually had at the time the Constitution was written, can own guns. There is no provision for private citizen ownership.

You are wrong. You obviously don't understand English.

Amendment II (1791)
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.

"A well regulated militia" is a nominative absolute.

"being necessary to the security of a free State" is a participial phrase modifying "militia."

The subject (a compound subject) of the sentence is "the right of the people."

“Shall not be infringed" is a verb phrase, with "not" as an adverb modifying the verb phrase "shall be infringed."

"To keep and bear arms is an infinitive phrase modifying the verb phrase "Shall not be infringed."

Since "the right of the people" is the subject of the sentence and "shall not be infringed" is the verb, clearly from the English construction of the sentence, the people have the right; it is not a right of a "militia."

Try learning a little English. It may help your comprehension.

 

[2ndAmendment]

There's plenty of infringing going on, and everyone pretty much accepts it.

• You can't buy a fully automatic weapon without putting up some cash, having a background check, and getting a license.
• You can't buy a firearm from a vending machine.
• You can't buy a firearm and have it shipped to your house via UPS.
• You can't own a firearm if you beat your wife.
• You can't own a firearm if you are a convicted felon.
• You can't own a firearm if you are under 21.

If you accept any of these laws, than you pretty much accept the fact that the government has the right to restrict the sale of firearms to its citizens.

Anyway, all this argument may be moot. The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, no matter what the original intent was.

Am looking forward to the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision to review DC's right to keep handguns out of its residents hands.

I don't accept any of those laws except the one about the felon; felons used to lose their citizenship; still should. Just because a law is passed and put on the books does not mean it is constitutional.

 

[2ndAmendment]

What you describe is what is an un-organized militia that is a component of something other than the 1903 act as I understand it, but that is besides the point.
The 1903 act did not replace the Second Amendment, it only supplanted part of the definition of the "Militia" under Artcle I Aection 8.

The Second Amendment addresses the state's rights to have militia's armed properly and it also says the right of the People to be armed must be also un-infringed.

Both militias still exist today. The National Guard is a totally different entity.

 

[Bruzilla]

True, but I think the act of 1792 puts the term militia into the context the founding fathers meant when they wrote the constitution.

I think you're 100% right! It doesn't matter what changes have been made to the law, or the definitions of a militia since the second ammendment was written. What matters is what the Framers thought a militia was when the ammendment was writeen.

 

[Larry Gude]

This is all...

I think you're 100% right! It doesn't matter what changes have been made to the law, or the definitions of a militia since the second ammendment was written. What matters is what the Framers thought a militia was when the ammendment was writeen.

...well and good to discuss but it is a side issue to this;

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.

It doesn't say 'the right of the members of the militia'.

It doesn't say 'the right of the state.'

It says the people. The people have the right to keep and bare arms and we have the right to overthrow the government which in and of itself removes any concern over who regulates the militia as it CAN'T be the government as the government isn't going to over throw itself.

It is us. It is our militia.

We, the people.

 

[This_person]

...well and good to discuss but it is a side issue to this;



It doesn't say 'the right of the members of the militia'.

It doesn't say 'the right of the state.'

It says the people. The people have the right to keep and bare arms and we have the right to overthrow the government which in and of itself removes any concern over who regulates the militia as it CAN'T be the government as the government isn't going to over throw itself.

It is us. It is our militia.

We, the people.

You mean, the people have the right to overthrow the government? Like, whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness? You really think the people who wrote: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security" might have been thinking about the government they were forming, and whether it, too, might someday need be overthrown?

That's crazy, man!