• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Mandatory gun ownership laws...

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Nothing is wrong with my reading comprehension. Let me help you with your reading comprehension what I asked is to cite the constitution that mandates gun ownership, something that has not been done. An act of congress does not make something constitutional. I.E. Obama care.

The federalist papers is not the constitution it can give us a great insight on what they were thinking but it isn't constitutional. Many of the centralist statist ideas of Hamilton were thwarted by the more liberty minded anti federalist.

The constitution does not mandate gun ownership. I never contended such. A law passed by congress (or the state bodies) mandating gun ownership is constitutional is what I contend. The constitution clearly gives authority over the militia to congress (not exclusively), including the authority to arm the militia. The constitution does not state what methods congress must use to arm the militia, therefore passing a law requiring each member to procure arms does derive its authority from the constitution and does not exceed any limits imposed by the constitution: it is constitutional.

ps an interesting thought I just had: congress has the authority to arm the militia, but does it have the authority to disarm the militia?
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
30 second Google search

Article 1, Section 8

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


No where does it say it has the power to mandate gun ownership. Read your quotes you provided carefully.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
The constitution does not mandate gun ownership. I never contended such. A law passed by congress (or the state bodies) mandating gun ownership is constitutional is what I contend. The constitution clearly gives authority over the militia to congress (not exclusively), including the authority to arm the militia. The constitution does not state what methods congress must use to arm the militia, therefore passing a law requiring each member to procure arms does derive its authority from the constitution and does not exceed any limits imposed by the constitution: it is constitutional.

ps an interesting thought I just had: congress has the authority to arm the militia, but does it have the authority to disarm the militia?

The power to raise and supply an army isn't the power to use force in mandating you are part of the army or that you must own a gun.

The draft is just as unconstitutional.
 

Brian D.

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2007
Messages
937
Location
Cincy area, Ohio, USA
Most (if not all) of those "Must Be Armed" city ordinances have enough loop holes and exceptions anyone that doesn't want to have a gun doesn't have to. It is purely symbolic; unlike Morton Grove, Peoples Democratic Republic of Illinois' ban.

That is true. While these mandatory gun ownership laws were passed as ordinances, they're written more like resolutions. I don't believe that Kennesaw Georgia has ever tried to charge someone with a crime for not having a gun in their home or the like.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
The authority to compel citizens to bear arms is not a power delegated to the Federal Government, yet it is Constitutional as provided in the Tenth Amendment.
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.

Saying that laws which mandate the bearing of arms somehow infringe on the right to bear (or not bear) arms is analogous to saying that compelling a witness to testify in court infringes on their right to free speech (or to remain silent).
 
Last edited:

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
The power to raise and supply an army isn't the power to use force in mandating you are part of the army or that you must own a gun.

The draft is just as unconstitutional.

arm, organize, call forth, etc... and the power to make laws as necessary for carrying into execution the forgoing powers...

sure sounds like the power to make the militia arm itself. The militia was not defined by the constitution, it was understood what it was

As an appeal to THE authority on the constitution:

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

“Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50 is enrolled in the militia. …. In every county is a county lieutenant, who commands the whole militia of his county. …. The governor is the head of the military, as well as the civil power. The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service.”
--Thomas Jefferson 1781
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
arm, organize, call forth, etc... and the power to make laws as necessary for carrying into execution the forgoing powers...

sure sounds like the power to make the militia arm itself. The militia was not defined by the constitution, it was understood what it was

As an appeal to THE authority on the constitution:

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

“Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50 is enrolled in the militia. …. In every county is a county lieutenant, who commands the whole militia of his county. …. The governor is the head of the military, as well as the civil power. The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service.”
--Thomas Jefferson 1781

A law forcing you to publicly tell your opinion could use the same logic.

Just because we are the militia doesn't mean we can be forced to serve and that is constitutional to do so.
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc

SVG. can you cite where it would be unconstitutional? this argument can be found in the constriction acts of the past

Well; I suppose we could start with the Militia Act of 1792; passed by the Second US Congress made up of many of the same men that ratified the Constitution.

not trying to argue with you F350, but these are also the men that past the Sedition act.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
There is a militia

It's called the National Guard.....

The only issue with citing the militia act is everyone focuses on "owning a musket", but leaves out the "reporting to officer". Also, there was age restrictions. The quotes everyone has used thus far have said 18-45. So does that mean after 45 you turn your musket back in?

The militia act and idea involved things like TRAINING and a chain of command.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/182nd_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)

1-182nd INF. That's my current regiment and has been for a while. If you want to be part of a militia join and deal with the deployments and training and activations, instead of just picking the cool parts from it.

Edit: Wikipedia is incorrect in that it hasn't been updated. We are back to being Infantry not Cavalry. The regiment did alot of switching for a while.
 
Last edited:

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
A law forcing you to publicly tell your opinion could use the same logic.

Just because we are the militia doesn't mean we can be forced to serve and that is constitutional to do so.

That's not what the constitution says... Not wanting to show up for militia duty and being punished for such a dereliction sounds like something covered under discipline.

...To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia...

What an interesting idea, the constitution is not constitutional?
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
SVG. can you cite where it would be unconstitutional? this argument can be found in the constriction acts of the past



not trying to argue with you F350, but these are also the men that past the Sedition act.

There is enumerated powers, I can't cite what isn't there. The ninth does show we retain an unlimited amount of rights. The 14th amendment in outlawing slavery outlawed mandatory service.
An invented power to mandate gun ownership because the government has the power and authority over a militia that volunteers to serve is a far cry to claiming they can mandate you serve or own.

That's not what the constitution says... Not wanting to show up for militia duty and being punished for such a dereliction sounds like something covered under discipline.

...To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia...

What an interesting idea, the constitution is not constitutional?

You are misusing the word discipline it has nothing to do with punish in that context but with training, it's the preferred method of myself for raising my children.
It is a stretch to say that they can force you to fight for them and force you to own a gun. When that is so contrary to liberty, natural law, and DOI.
I am not arguing they don't have the authority to tell me what I can or can't do if I volunteer and remain voluntarily under their authority.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
It's called the National Guard.....

The only issue with citing the militia act is everyone focuses on "owning a musket", but leaves out the "reporting to officer". Also, there was age restrictions. The quotes everyone has used thus far have said 18-45. So does that mean after 45 you turn your musket back in?

The militia act and idea involved things like TRAINING and a chain of command.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/182nd_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)

1-182nd INF. That's my current regiment and has been for a while. If you want to be part of a militia join and deal with the deployments and training and activations, instead of just picking the cool parts from it.

Edit: Wikipedia is incorrect in that it hasn't been updated. We are back to being Infantry not Cavalry. The regiment did alot of switching for a while.

UH the militia is not the National Guard....read the Virginia constitution, which predates and set the example for the U.S. constitution it defines the militia right in it.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
UH the militia is not the National Guard....read the Virginia constitution, which predates and set the example for the U.S. constitution it defines the militia right in it.

My point is that the National Guard is the modern day version of the militia. Hence why I used my unit as an example. My unit was a militia. Then it eventually went big army. Then it was relegated back to the state (militia) hence we report to the state, not the Federal Gov. I'm sure Virginia may have something different, but it's not the Con.

My previous point stands. With a militia there is supposed to be the though stuff too. Not just the fun stuff.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
...
You are misusing the word discipline it has nothing to do with punish in that context but with training, it's the preferred method of myself for raising my children.
It is a stretch to say that they can force you to fight for them and force you to own a gun. When that is so contrary to liberty, natural law, and DOI.
I am not arguing they don't have the authority to tell me what I can or can't do if I volunteer and remain voluntarily under their authority.

On my "misuse" of discipline, cite please, I've never heard such a limited definition of the word. Everything I've ever read about implicit authority and discipline from such times has indicated the exact opposite of what you are saying.

I think its fairly clear that while the founders tried to limit the federal government severely, and many were proponents of maximum liberty, they also seemed to think some individual liberty had to be sacrificed to duty in order to safeguard the rest as shown by such broad powers given over the militia and the enactment of the Militia Act of 1792. While in today's world it might seem horrific to hold someone to a duty of mutual self defense, in 1790 USA was barely more than a joke that might end with alot of hangings. If no-one showed up to defend the country, far more liberty would be lost than that sacrificed to duty in the constitution and subsequent acts. Of course the Anti-federalists were not so keen on the powers the federal govt has over the militia.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
It's called the National Guard.....

That is what Teddy thought the Militia should be, not what the founders called the militia, and by the Militia Act of 1903 the National Guard is only part of the Militia, known as the organized militia.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
My point is that the National Guard is the modern day version of the militia. Hence why I used my unit as an example. My unit was a militia. Then it eventually went big army. Then it was relegated back to the state (militia) hence we report to the state, not the Federal Gov. I'm sure Virginia may have something different, but it's not the Con.

My previous point stands. With a militia there is supposed to be the though stuff too. Not just the fun stuff.

Acts of congress can't change the meaning of the constitution, such would be changing the constitution without following the proper procedure outlined in the constitution. Do you also think we should have a modern day interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, maybe where some arms those everyday civilians (ie subjects) can't have, as they don't need such items?
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
On my "misuse" of discipline, cite please, I've never heard such a limited definition of the word. Everything I've ever read about implicit authority and discipline from such times has indicated the exact opposite of what you are saying.

I think its fairly clear that while the founders tried to limit the federal government severely, and many were proponents of maximum liberty, they also seemed to think some individual liberty had to be sacrificed to duty in order to safeguard the rest as shown by such broad powers given over the militia and the enactment of the Militia Act of 1792. While in today's world it might seem horrific to hold someone to a duty of mutual self defense, in 1790 USA was barely more than a joke that might end with alot of hangings. If no-one showed up to defend the country, far more liberty would be lost than that sacrificed to duty in the constitution and subsequent acts. Of course the Anti-federalists were not so keen on the powers the federal govt has over the militia.

What I am saying is that discipline can include punishment, but in a broader sense means training, and in the constitution it appears to me to mean branch of knowledge, like someone can be well trained in the discipline of martial arts.

Yet in 1792 there were no federal regulations to mandate gun ownership. This was a state issue. Mandating a personal property would be very much contrary to the principles of the federal constitution and to the declaration of independence.

It would be unconstitutional according to my state constitution too, because it says in article 1 section 1 that its the states jobs to protect my individual rights.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
My point is that the National Guard is the modern day version of the militia. Hence why I used my unit as an example. My unit was a militia. Then it eventually went big army. Then it was relegated back to the state (militia) hence we report to the state, not the Federal Gov. I'm sure Virginia may have something different, but it's not the Con.

My previous point stands. With a militia there is supposed to be the though stuff too. Not just the fun stuff.

Your point doesn't stand, it uses modern politics to twist words and the constitution to fig their agenda. Whats next you can regulate marijuana and gun use with the commerce clause?:rolleyes:
 
Top