CHL and Vehicle?

[RPB]

G.A. Health a few thing you are mistaken about:

1) When our founders speak of soldiers they are referring to regular army regulars. But when they are speaking of militia they are speaking of the people. This is not something that I learned from formal education, rather it is something that I figured out myself after doing a little digging, and US law supports it. As for the third amendment supporting your argument it doesn't, again solider refers to regular army, and the militia is NOT part of that.

2) You making the argument about the regulated militia being the regular army and that being what the authors referencing flying completely in the face of the recent supreme court decision that clearly affirms the second amendment to be an individual right. And see as one of the arguments brought in that suit was that the second amendment did not protect an individual right rather a right of government to arm unit such as the national guard.

3) Your point of the 4th admendment only makes mine stronger. The forth amendment does not read as protecting against search and seizure by the militia. Rather from the government is implied. And militia IS NOT AND WAS NOT considered or thought to be an government entity or regular army. Rather it was thought of and defined then as now as the people. And the reason they are given the second amendment is to protect themselves and their families not only from common crime but also from the government.

I think you meant to address me rather than G A

1) The militia, is the soldiers, soldiers come from all walks of life, from the general population, but the general population is not the soldiers. A Venn diagram function would be helpful here. It could be applied to each of the first 8 amendments

2) A recent Court case has little to do with what our relatives were thinking years ago when they formulated these. Yes, the right is an individual right of "the People" as are most of the rights in the first 8 as opposed to being a right of the government/congress/militia/soldiers

3) My point about the 4th amendment shows that the right of "an individual"/the people/populace exists against invasion of a right by a branch of "the government" (police/militia/soldiers etc)

Every one of the first 8 Amendments is to protect "a person/individual owner etc" freedom/right against invasion of that freedom/right by "the government/soldiers/police/militia/congress" branches of the Govt.

The Second and Third Amendments, and others, were written to protect "US" (Individuals/people/property owners) from THEM (the branches of the Govt)
THAT is why Doctor Hupp says "It's to protect us from you" while testifying to the Legislature

The 2A does not "create" a right.
The RECOGNITION by the document on right of SELF DEFENSE was formulated from the 2nd/3rd amendment as a RKBA in that a soldier, while you are away from your home, could hold a family member hostage thereby gaining your "consent" (under duress, which is not true consent) to quarter soldiers ... this original "right to defend yourself/family FROM the Government" evolved into a general right to self defense RKBA against others wishing to do you or family harm.

[youtube][/youtube]

[C-dub]

I'm not nearly as versed on this subject as some of you guys, but I'd like a shot at it.

I think a militia should be well regulated once it is formed. The people have a right to keep and bear arms so that when there is a need to form that militia they will be able to bring their own weapons. There's no need for regulation at this time because a militia is not needed yet, but the government has slowly regulated our right away from us. My guess is the biggest reason they were able to do this initially was because after the Civil War a whole bunch of people were afraid of the slaves getting guns. Then after all the killings during the gangster era they got all regulation happy again.

How far off am I with this?

[RPB]

The militia was comprised of the populace, but not everyone in the populace was a militia member

Examine how the term was used as recently as 1890, using Idaho in 1890 as an example
obviously, one was drafted into the militia/army/branch of the govt/becomes a soldier
http://www.sos.idaho.gov/elect/stcon/articl14.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The Draft"

SECTION 1. PERSONS SUBJECT TO MILITARY DUTY. All able-bodied male persons, residents of this state, between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, shall be enrolled in the militia, and perform such military duty as may be required by law ...

SECTION 3. SELECTION AND COMMISSION OF OFFICERS. All militia officers shall be commissioned by the governor

This is like the State Police/State Army/State Guard ... branches of a government group of potential oppressors rather than property owner/individual needing protection from said branch of Govt oppressor

2A+3A are to protect us individuals from Govt, all branches, though the branches with guns, soldiers.militia/police etc are enumerated/listed/specified or implied http://www.ushistory.org/documents/amendments.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Force" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

State defense forces (SDF) (also known as state guards, state military reserves, or state militias) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government; they are partially regulated by the National Guard Bureau but they are not a part of the Army National Guard of the United States.[1] State defense forces are authorized by state and federal law and are under the command of the governor of each state.

They are regulated, they are governmental entities.
The 2A protects the people from that governmental entity.
========

Amendment IV
Search and arrest
Who would be searching and arresting, if not police/military a Govt branch?
That's from whom it protects.

3A
Who would force the quartering of soldiers if not police/military a Govt branch?
That's from whom it protects.

Amendment VIII
Bail, fines, punishment
Excessive bail
Who would set excessive bail, an individual? nope ...a Govt branch

Amendment VI
Right to a fair trial
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to ..
Criminal cases are generally titled State vs. _______ or United States vs._____

Amendment V
Rights in criminal cases
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The 5th has several points, State vs. _______ also it relates to Eminent Domain, ... etc Govt oppression forcing into self-incrimination, Govt taking individuals property, etc Same as third Amendment protects individuals from having property confiscated for quartering soldiers and the 2A gives the tool by which that protection may be exercised.

Protection of the individual against the Govt/Govt oppression was the "theme of the day" when those were being written.

Concerning REDEFINITION ... by ... the Courts ... a branch of .... The Govt ... to suit their purposes ...
Taking one Amendment out of context and changing a known historical meaning of one word to a more recent definition of that word to convince those who know better will not work any better than trying to convince the relatives of the author of West Side Story that the author was promoting a cause for Gay marriage because she felt pretty and gay ... whereas at the end of the song it's because she's loved by a wonderful boy ... They won't buy the "new definition of a word in a sentence out of context argument" either
[youtube][/youtube]

Protection of the individual against the Govt/Govt oppression was the "theme of the day" when those were being written.

Reading the Dec of Indep and John Locke writings, and the entire Constitution and all original Amendments and having relatives here who are descendants of those in that room when it was written ... helps

And

I agree, if one wants to start a separate discussion on History, it should be a separate thread.
Maybe we could make it a sticky thread to discuss what we all think they meant when they wrote something 100s of years ago if we take each part out of context like some teachers or anti-2A lawyers in Courts would want us to.


I believe the OP's question was answered on a prior page, possibly the first page..

[Longshot38]

RPB it is pointless that neither one of believes ourselves to be wrong and we both can make a good case for our arguments. But this topic has already diverged far enough off course. So I'm going to leave it at this. The people are the militia, just as it was during the time when the Constitution was authored, while the Army is a government entity comprised of soldiers. And you have proven that by quoting the law. And our founding fathers envisioned a country comprised of citizen soldiers that while not part of the standing army could be employed, during times of crisis, to augment a standing army (among other things). And our second amendment rights are based upon that concept.

[RPB]

RPB it is pointless that neither one of believes ourselves to be wrong and we both can make a good case for our arguments. But this topic has already diverged far enough off course. So I'm going to leave it at this. The people are the militia, just as it was during the time when the Constitution was authored, while the Army is a government entity comprised of soldiers. And you have proven that by quoting the law. And our founding fathers envisioned a country comprised of citizen soldiers that while not part of the standing army could be employed, during times of crisis, to augment a standing army (among other things). And our second amendment rights are based upon that concept.

Some things are true, no matter what one believes.
The people, and States are protected from the bigger govt/branches of govt, whether courts/Police/militia by the Amendments, that was their purpose.
They were added to get the constitution ratified by the States which worried about a strong central "owner" like England was.

Etymology

Militia derives from Latin roots:

miles /miːles/ : soldier
-itia /iːtia/ : a state, activity, quality or condition of being
militia /mil:iːtia/: Military service

The word militia dates back to at least 1590 when it was recorded in a book by Sir John Smythe, Certain Discourses Military with the meanings: a military force; a body of soldiers and military affairs; a body of military discipline

I know the point you are making
I don't disagree totally

In a Govt of the people by the people for the people .... the people = the govt

There is a point, where a people's militia ... becomes a Government, and the minority people may need protection from it.

Even in the 1800s, some cities/settlements had "citizen councils" rather than "Marshall/Sheriff/Courts" so the group of citizens hanging you for this or that reason... is the government, authorized by a majority of the residents.... at that point, your citizen militia, is indeed the government, from which individual property owners/citizens need protection as enumerated. (3) Quartering soldiers, (5) losing their property without due process, etc.

The Adamses, were my relatives, and we concerned ourselves with the people (individual people being governed) versus the Govt. (majority group of people governing) That's my point.

Article you might enjoy
http://elusivewapiti.blogspot.com/2009/ ... n-law.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A Brief History of Early American Law Enforcement

The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary...the growth of modern policing has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost principles.

The Duty of the Citizenry at the Time of the Founders
Put simply, law enforcement at the time of the founders was not the duty of hired and paid agents of the State, but of each and every citizen. Read that again: law enforcement was the duty of the individual citizen. Key to this paradigm was the notion that each citizen was responsible for their own safety, that they be in possession of their own arms, as well as a recognition that armed coercive force was not awarded as a monopoly power to government agents but rather reserved and employed regularly by the People themselves.

According to Roots, "many early state constitutions purported to bind citizens into a universal obligation to perform law enforcement functions", and made no mention of any positive duty on the State to enforce the law. Moreover, under the principle of posse comitatus, each citizen could regularly expect to be required--in a manner reminiscent of being called up for jury duty*, another throw-back to times long past--to act in the function of a deputy when called upon by the sheriff.

The people are indeed, the military, and at times, the people need protection from the people in the military, as in when they take private property, force you to quarter them etc ... which is ... the government, because by reason of their number and disparity of force and consent of the populace, they govern you and limit your individual freedom.

[57Coastie]

RPB it is pointless that neither one of believes ourselves to be wrong and we both can make a good case for our arguments. But this topic has already diverged far enough off course. So I'm going to leave it at this. The people are the militia, just as it was during the time when the Constitution was authored, while the Army is a government entity comprised of soldiers. And you have proven that by quoting the law. And our founding fathers envisioned a country comprised of citizen soldiers that while not part of the standing army could be employed, during times of crisis, to augment a standing army (among other things). And our second amendment rights are based upon that concept.

Geo. Washington chaired the Federal Convention, which became known as the Constitutional Convention after the members exceeded their authority (which was only to amend the Articles of Confederation to make them more effective), and wrote a brand new Constitution and ultra vires created a brand new nation, at the time arguably treason. One of the first things Washington insisted upon, and which he made his acceptance of the presidency upon, was the formation of a standing army. He explained what a terrible time he had leading our "army" during the revolution, because it was not an army, but it was made up of a bunch of militiamen having no common leadership, training or discipline. He had served with a regular army, and he knew the difference between such and the militias of the time. He was actually accused of murder when he hanged members of the militia who arguably worked for the separate states. He successfully made the argument that he could not carry out his duty as commander-in-chief, and protect the new nation from enemies both at home and abroad without a regular army trained to fight like a regular army, and he would not accept the presidency unless his demand was assured.

At just about this time one of the weaknesses of the Artcles of Confederation was demonstrated by what became known as the "Whiskey Rebellion," and it was all fresh in the minds of the members of the convention, the present congress (under the articles), and the new congress under the new constitution. They all knew that they would not have one country unless they had one army and one navy, instead of a bunch of rag-tag militiamen and civilian vessels operating under letters of marque. It was simple -- real nations had military forces.

Moreover, it was very important to our new country that it be recognized by foreign nations as being a real nation. The French, Spanish and British were ready to cut our new nation apart from all sides and gobble it up, and unless we had that army and navy Washington knew the likelihood of our being recognized abroad was slim if not nonexistent, and that our new nation would not last very long .

Members of the various disorganized militias with no common leadership, training and discipline at that time were not soldiers. Our new president and most of our leaders at the time knew that well. The words "well regulated" in the Second Amendment meant to them "well led, well trained, and well disciplined."

There were exceptions among the founding fathrs, for example, Thomas Jefferson. He hated the idea of a standing army and navy. (As an aside, that is why the military service I devoted the best years of my life to is our nation's longest continuously active naval service -- when Jefferson became president he abolished the navy. Then, of course, came 1812, and we almost lost the nation our founders had fought so valiantly to build.)

Jim

[gringo pistolero]

do you have to take the LEO to your vehicle if it is requested? Even if the location is of a great distance? Had a discussion today about that topic. Thank you.

No. Unless they have a warrant for your car, you don't have to show or tell them where it is.