TexasCHLforum.com

First, thank you gentlemen for welcoming me to the forum so warmly, and for the wise advice and caution you have given me. I really appreciate it I am looking for ways to improve this proposal, and keep it from being turned into something that it wasn't meant to be. I was impressed by the comments of one person in particular on my article, and I'd like to post them here to receive your thoughts and opinions on it:

BoringGuy45:

"Some good points and I agree on many. I think that the country, which is pretty vulnerable to attack if early warning, coast, and boarder defenses are penetrated, would be well served by what would amount to a multimillion-strong trained citizen army. Also, countries like Israel and Switzerland, which have universal conscription, have among the lowest crime rates in the world. A regulated citizen militia here in the U.S. would also aid in natural disaster response in their respective states. On top of that, it would also create jobs and at least SOME supplemental income for just about everyone.

HOWEVER, here are a few pitfalls that I don't think you addressed with this.

First, there is the issue of states simply finding easy and numerous reasons to disqualify large numbers of people from militia service. This hypothetical act would need to be emphasized that militia service, like bearing arms, is a RIGHT as well as a duty. This right, like all others, would not be able to be taken away except for cause and through due process. If disqualification from militia service is allowed to be decided medically or administratively, it would allow states to fully deny a right based on a single person or agency's decision. Unless convicted of a felony, domestic violence, hard drug use, or adjudicated mentally defective, ALL citizens should be able to service in the militia. Standards should probably be that less than 5% of the population would be ineligible for militia service. Because, as it is, only about 2-3% of the population are criminals, severely mentally ill, or both. So just about everyone needs to have this right. No disqualification from the militia should be allowed except by cause and by court decision.

The next issue is the one of physical and mental qualifications. Now, I don't know if you said it and I didn't read it, but the standards for the militia MUST be MUCH lower than that of the regular military. Diagnosis and treatment for physical ailments, such as asthma, diabetes, etc., that are disqualifying for military service, should not bar citizens from the militia. Mental conditions, such as depression or anxiety, which is disqualifying from military service, should not disqualify anyone from service unless, once again, it can be shown that the person is an immanent threat to him/herself or others.

Another issue is the one of mandatory and severe sentencing for non-militia in possession of military weapons. I'm also very much against mandatory, zero tolerance policies as they remove discretion and common sense. Everything needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis."

CTMarine87:

"I agree with literally everything you said. Those issues have all been raised privately to me from other gun-rights advocates, as well. You have my word that if my proposal gains nationwide awareness and popularity, (and that's a HUGE "if,") I will make sure that this does not become a tool for either mass disarmament or a select militia, which the founders spoke explicitly against."

Hey Gents,

My Aunt's friend Rex directed me towards this forum. I'd like to clear a couple things up, if I may. I've studied the speeches, literature, propaganda, debates and proposals that were given by the several states when they were ratifying their state-wide rights to bear arms. I've also studied the same for the proposals surrounding the Federal Bill of Rights. In writing my article, I didn't feel that a mention of those "extras" was necessary to get my point across. I also believe 110%, just as you gentlemen do, that the purpose of the drafting and ratification of each and every right to bear arms at every level was in order to protect the rights of individual citizens to take up arms in defense of tyranny, and for all other lawful purposes. However, as my story was geared towards an American population largely unaware of the detailed history of our founding as a a nation, I felt it best to keep it short and sweet, including brief references to how the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, and also giving the political motivations behind the preferatory clause of the amendment, which, as we all know, was included as a check on the power of the federal government. In developing this proposal, I had to come up with something that was not only constitutional and historically accurate, but also that both sides could agree on. Washington is in a stalemate, and our full Second Amendment rights aren't going to be restored through conventional means anytime soon. We have to get creative and think about ways of restoring liberty "outside the box" so-to-speak. This means a degree of compromise, yes. But it also means that we would soon have the right to carry battlefield weapons on our physical persons every day, everywhere we go, without fear of harassment, arrest, jail time or other penalties. I merely used the historical and still currently legal status of the Unorganized Militia as a vehicle to get us there, while letting moderates and gun control advocates take comfort and victory in the fact that all those carrying such weapons will be of a stable mental status, and free of VIOLENT felony convictions, as well as thoroughly trained in the use of their arms. As the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Brady Bill would all be repealed under this Militia Act, there would be no more prohibited purchasers of basic arms, nor background checks, so even those with history of mental illness and violent felonies would be able to have a means of defending themselves, though an admittedly less effective means than the rest of the population. ONLY those found to be criminally insane and/or having a history of VIOLENT felony convictions would be prohibited from militia service, and prohibited from possession of battlefield weaponry. In other words, Michael Vick and Martha Stewart could go buy their machine guns. In my opinion, this is a pretty good deal... But then again I wrote the proposal