Supreme Court, The 2nd Amendment And The NRA

[TheShootist 3]

4 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

the problem with the govt, is that we need a way to fire them all. then if their replacements fdon't do the job correctly, fire them too. and keep doing it till the ones that we vote into power get the point and do it right.

 as for do i believe that it matters what the words say? i do. and those words(at least in the 1st and 2nd) are incredibly clear and obvious. there is no "interpreting" or "i think they meant XXX"/. it's written right there on paper for us to see....and in theory abide by.

 our system got hijacked quite some time ago. sadly, i think it's beyond saving, and it's just on a slow death spiral.

 

 essentially, the way we do it now.....i hire a mechanic. he sucks. but i gotta keep him for 2 years or 4 years. then i can try to fire him.

I don't want to be argumentative, but in what universe do you believe "that it matters what the words say?"  The first 13 words to the 2nd state "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." 

With the exception of my posts here, who has argued for "the whole people" as the Founders recognized a body of authority trained with the power to control crime on the streets, in the courts, and the legislatures?

Militia is a branch of government controlled by the People. As Militia in the state statutes it comes with the authority that we've abdicated to a bunch of unconstitutional law enforcement that protect the state from the People, rather than as was intended by having the Sword in the hands of the People. It is not under the control of the government, it acts in the same manner as the executive, legislative, or judicial with the ultimate authority to define what is, or is not legitimate. 

Having said that, there is finally some good news coming out of Oath Keepers. I don't know if anyone here has seen a James Yeager film, but he is producing another.

Good Guys with Guns. Should the NRA Support a Constitutional Militia?

I've made a contribution. 

[Zeke 5,504]

Lost me at Yeager

[tattooo 220]

Lost me at Yeager

[emoji23][emoji23]

[High Exposure 5,664]

17 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Lost me at Yeager

Fuck Yeager.

 

But I think this is a different guy:

James Jeager.

http://www.mecfilms.com/jrjbio.htm

[Zeke 5,504]

5 minutes ago, High Exposure said:

Fuck Yeager.

 

But I think this is a different guy:

James Jeager.

http://www.mecfilms.com/jrjbio.htm

Oh....awkward....

[1LtCAP 4,263]

yeager while he makes a good point here and there....is a nutbag.

 

 you're focused on the well regulated militia. what do you define as "well regulated"?  why do you not also focus on right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."? what exactly do you think the militia is/was? i get the impression you know these answers, but i also get the impression you disagree with them. or i could be wrong.

[jackandjill 683]

On one hand some of these people argue that no body needs a "permission" to form a Constitutional Militia. In fact, some of these folks argue that We The People are ALREADY a Constitutional Militia by definition. THEN stop d*cking around making films, writing books and bring a case in front of SCOTUS. 

I still dont understand why these people complain about NRA. 

Is it the lack of money ?  lack of plaintiffs ? $1 million ? $50 millions ? What is preventing these supposed scholars from bringing a case to SCOTUS based on Constitutional Militia argument ? 

We are back to square 1 where OP post started. 

[1LtCAP 4,263]

21 minutes ago, jackandjill said:

On one hand some of these people argue that no body needs a "permission" to form a Constitutional Militia. In fact, some of these folks argue that We The People are ALREADY a Constitutional Militia by definition. THEN stop d*cking around making films, writing books and bring a case in front of SCOTUS. 

I still dont understand why these people complain about NRA. 

Is it the lack of money ?  lack of plaintiffs ? $1 million ? $50 millions ? What is preventing these supposed scholars from bringing a case to SCOTUS based on Constitutional Militia argument ? 

We are back to square 1 where OP post started. 

they don't bring it to the scotus because that won't make them money.

[Zeke 5,504]

Well hopefully we hear something by Monday.

[TheShootist 3]

19 hours ago, High Exposure said:

Fuck Yeager.

 

But I think this is a different guy:

James Jeager.

http://www.mecfilms.com/jrjbio.htm

This James Jeager is a film maker who has produced films on government, and its abuses. It's not the loud mouth you see on youtube. 

[TheShootist 3]

As I see so many times, no one understands the nature of the system that we've allowed to grow.

You simply can't bring a case to the court. There has to be a basis for doing so, and you have to have support. There are many factors, and the money is a very big issue unless you're going to do all the work on your own. As a matter of fact SCOTUS passed a rule several years back that does not allow those who are not sworn before the bar to argue a case. There are hours, and hours of work that go into a case.

However, when it comes down to the argument of Militia, the problem is not lawyers bringing it, it is the community in general. Example; Since 911, that is a 16 year span, the total number of people who have served in the military is 2 MILLION. You would think in a nation of more than 300 MILLION people that has just been attacked that they would be lining up. 

Then there is the general pro-2nd crowd who always deflect to things like, what have you done. To put that aside for the time being, I'm a veteran, I've written numerous articles on the 2nd, I've spoken on it even though I hate public speaking, I contact representatives on a constant basis, and I've asked them to debate me in an open forum. Just last week I called my congressman to challenge him to a debate. And in order to start the ball rolling, I've written the governor, and made application under Title 38A: 1-2 Composition of Militia; “such other persons as may upon their own application be enlisted or commissioned therein in accordance with federal or State law and regulations.”

I've asked others to join me to gain some momentum, but I've yet to garner any support. I thought it was simple enough so that I could BRING a case, but truth be told for all those who support the NRA, and GOA, they will not come forward on the first 13 words of the amendment. As a matter of fact the issue is not bringing cases, it is the fact that this community will not perform any function of the responsibility imposed.

The 2nd is part of a rubric that the Founders put together in order to guarantee that the People could not be disarmed. It requires that all able-bodied men between the ages of 17-45 keep in good working order a military rifle, with sufficient ammunition, and that THEY TRAIN ON A REGULAR BASIS. Once people hear that, all the excuses and arguments come out for an unorganized militia, and the historically incorrect nonsense that comes along with deflecting the fact that people are more inclined to do nothing, and leave it up to the next guy.

I've posted a bunch of questions on here about the supposed unorganized militia. As a matter of fact I've asked those questions of a number of so-called pro-2nd people. I even asked them of someone who claimed he knew more about the topic than me. Do you know how many people have even attempted answering? NONE! Go up some comments the questions are there. But the most poignant question is, why argue about organizing, arming, and train "according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"? 

For those who claim to have read the Heller decision, does the court actually say that it is a right, or a privilege that the state may regulate, and in fact out of existence? 

[reloaderguy 30]

23 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:

yeager while he makes a good point here and there....is a nutbag.

 

 you're focused on the well regulated militia. what do you define as "well regulated"?  why do you not also focus on right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."? what exactly do you think the militia is/was? i get the impression you know these answers, but i also get the impression you disagree with them. or i could be wrong.

Because the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed loses in court time after time.

 

[jackandjill 683]

3 hours ago, TheShootist said:

As I see so many times, no one understands the nature of the system that we've allowed to grow.

You simply can't bring a case to the court. There has to be a basis for doing so, and you have to have support. There are many factors, and the money is a very big issue unless you're going to do all the work on your own. As a matter of fact SCOTUS passed a rule several years back that does not allow those who are not sworn before the bar to argue a case. There are hours, and hours of work that go into a case.

However, when it comes down to the argument of Militia, the problem is not lawyers bringing it, it is the community in general. ......

I am a stupid, ignorant simpleton. Simpletons like me can't read thousands of pages of books. Nor do we have attention span to read few paragraphs.

The fat lady who choked on the fat burger she purchased can take the case to SCOTUS but are you telling me ONE person (lets say thats you) and his/her lawyer (say thats Dr. Vieira) cannot bring a case to SCOTUS ? Fat lady example is silly, but the fact is individual  (or a small group) cases end up in SCOTUS all the time, without any "millions of people" support.

My brief look at the oathkeepers website gave me impression that there are lot of people out there who support Dr. Vieira.

So you need a basis ?. If the argument about Militia and "shall not be infringed" were to hold in SCOTUS, doesn't existing NFA already provide you a basis to challenge ?

For ignorant simpletons like me, things have to be communicated with clear, concise steps. And simple explanation as to WHY for each step.

Step1:

Step2:

Here is what we need -

Need1:

Need2:

--------

I still don't see why Dr. Vieira complains about NRA or any other organization. If he has a strong argument he think can convince SCOTUS, and can do Pro bono work, I dont see why he couldn't bring a case on his own.

[CAL. .30 M1 2,101]

5 hours ago, TheShootist said:

As I see so many times, no one understands the nature of the system that we've allowed to grow.

You simply can't bring a case to the court. There has to be a basis for doing so, and you have to have support. There are many factors, and the money is a very big issue unless you're going to do all the work on your own. As a matter of fact SCOTUS passed a rule several years back that does not allow those who are not sworn before the bar to argue a case. There are hours, and hours of work that go into a case.

However, when it comes down to the argument of Militia, the problem is not lawyers bringing it, it is the community in general. Example; Since 911, that is a 16 year span, the total number of people who have served in the military is 2 MILLION. You would think in a nation of more than 300 MILLION people that has just been attacked that they would be lining up. 

Then there is the general pro-2nd crowd who always deflect to things like, what have you done. To put that aside for the time being, I'm a veteran, I've written numerous articles on the 2nd, I've spoken on it even though I hate public speaking, I contact representatives on a constant basis, and I've asked them to debate me in an open forum. Just last week I called my congressman to challenge him to a debate. And in order to start the ball rolling, I've written the governor, and made application under Title 38A: 1-2 Composition of Militia; “such other persons as may upon their own application be enlisted or commissioned therein in accordance with federal or State law and regulations.”

I've asked others to join me to gain some momentum, but I've yet to garner any support. I thought it was simple enough so that I could BRING a case, but truth be told for all those who support the NRA, and GOA, they will not come forward on the first 13 words of the amendment. As a matter of fact the issue is not bringing cases, it is the fact that this community will not perform any function of the responsibility imposed.

The 2nd is part of a rubric that the Founders put together in order to guarantee that the People could not be disarmed. It requires that all able-bodied men between the ages of 17-45 keep in good working order a military rifle, with sufficient ammunition, and that THEY TRAIN ON A REGULAR BASIS. Once people hear that, all the excuses and arguments come out for an unorganized militia, and the historically incorrect nonsense that comes along with deflecting the fact that people are more inclined to do nothing, and leave it up to the next guy.

I've posted a bunch of questions on here about the supposed unorganized militia. As a matter of fact I've asked those questions of a number of so-called pro-2nd people. I even asked them of someone who claimed he knew more about the topic than me. Do you know how many people have even attempted answering? NONE! Go up some comments the questions are there. But the most poignant question is, why argue about organizing, arming, and train "according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"? 

For those who claim to have read the Heller decision, does the court actually say that it is a right, or a privilege that the state may regulate, and in fact out of existence? 

I want to make sure i understand your position, so i am perfectly and 100% clear.

Is it your belief that the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms, is only valid when and in conjunction with them being in a state militia?

[voyager9 3,434]

43 minutes ago, USRifle30Cal said:

I want to make sure i understand your position, so i am perfectly and 100% clear.

Is it your belief that the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms, is only valid when and in conjunction with them being in a state militia?

I’m a layman and have only skimmed a lot of them posts. 

My understanding is that he is standing that on its head. “The Militia” is defined as almost everyone in the country “the people “ and therefor not only is the government prohibited from baning most firearms but everyone is required to possess in case they are needed to be called up in defense of the country. 

So you don’t have to belong to a militia to own. In fact you are in a militia as part of citizenship and are required to own. 

[jackandjill 683]

5 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

I’m a layman and have only skimmed a lot of them posts. 

My understanding is that he is standing that on its head. “The Militia” is defined as almost everyone in the country “the people “ and therefor not only is the government prohibited from baning most firearms but everyone is required to possess in case they are needed to be called up in defense of the country. 

So you don’t have to belong to a militia to own. In fact you are in a militia as part of citizenship and are required to own. 

THAT is something a simpleton like me can understand. Thank You (and I mean it). 

If I were to extend that, ANYONE ( by virtue of being a citizen, hence part of militia, hence govt cannot restrict) can bring a case.

So my question to @TheShooter, what is it that Dr. Vieira waiting or ? No need for "the cause" to arise (it has already risen by virtue of Federal Laws against many categories of fierarms) and certainly no need for NRA (or any other organization that Dr. Vieira is complaining about) to approve, disapprove or even be part of it. There is not even need for any "community" to support it.  If someone is so confident that they can beat it at SCOTUS, then they should bring a case TODAY.

 

[Zeke 5,504]

I’m pretty sure the shootist is the Dr

jus sayen ( you guys knew that, I’m jus making it public)

 

hmmm, where all these hits coming from

[CAL. .30 M1 2,101]

1 hour ago, voyager9 said:

I’m a layman and have only skimmed a lot of them posts. 

My understanding is that he is standing that on its head. “The Militia” is defined as almost everyone in the country “the people “ and therefor not only is the government prohibited from baning most firearms but everyone is required to possess in case they are needed to be called up in defense of the country. 

So you don’t have to belong to a militia to own. In fact you are in a militia as part of citizenship and are required to own. 

In my mind I was wondering if this is the next natural progression to my query....when I was posting it.

 

It is exciting to see someone seeing that next part of the equation.

[voyager9 3,434]

I’ll admit that premise doesn’t sit well with me. I struggle to define why.  It seems a bridge too far. 

[jackandjill 683]

1 minute ago, voyager9 said:

I’ll admit that premise doesn’t sit well with me. I struggle to define why.  It seems a bridge too far. 

In certain aspect, it makes sense to me. HOWEVER, there is certain danger in bringing that argument to SCOTUS. The simpletons there (just like me) could say that the Militia purpose was to secure freedom of State (which is correct) AND that existing "State Guard" (or whatever each State calls it) in fact IS the Militia and that their right to bear arms was never infringed upon.

In fact, that could pave a way to undo any progress made on individual rights side. Pro-2A organizations (and their lawyers) have been trying hard to get "individual right" designation to 2A and hoping that it will be an "incorporated right" so it was not something just against a centralized Govt but States too.  Bringing "Militia" argument into that mix could be like digging own grave.

Question is, can someone convince SCOTUS that its a Militia right AND an individual IS a Militia ? If so, bring the case NOW and bring it SEPARATELY from other 2A case(s).

If Dr. Vieira (and associates) were to bring such a case, it would be VERY interesting to pick a plaintiff who is a member of existing State Guard.

[1LtCAP 4,263]

2 hours ago, voyager9 said:

I’m a layman and have only skimmed a lot of them posts. 

My understanding is that he is standing that on its head. “The Militia” is defined as almost everyone in the country “the people “ and therefor not only is the government prohibited from baning most firearms but everyone is required to possess in case they are needed to be called up in defense of the country. 

So you don’t have to belong to a militia to own. In fact you are in a militia as part of citizenship and are required to own. 

perhaps i have been misunderstanding his argument?

[CAL. .30 M1 2,101]

37 minutes ago, jackandjill said:

In certain aspect, it makes sense to me. HOWEVER, there is certain danger in bringing that argument to SCOTUS. The simpletons there (just like me) could say that the Militia purpose was to secure freedom of State (which is correct) AND that existing "State Guard" (or whatever each State calls it) in fact IS the Militia and that their right to bear arms was never infringed upon.

In fact, that could pave a way to undo any progress made on individual rights side. Pro-2A organizations (and their lawyers) have been trying hard to get "individual right" designation to 2A and hoping that it will be an "incorporated right" so it was not something just against a centralized Govt but States too.  Bringing "Militia" argument into that mix could be like digging own grave.

Question is, can someone convince SCOTUS that its a Militia right AND an individual IS a Militia ? If so, bring the case NOW and bring it SEPARATELY from other 2A case(s).

If Dr. Vieira (and associates) were to bring such a case, it would be VERY interesting to pick a plaintiff who is a member of existing State Guard.

But looking at the meme - command of the second - being in English - dispel this concern?

[TheShootist 3]

20 hours ago, reloaderguy said:

Because the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed loses in court time after time.

 

I focus on the Militia because it is all the People with the constitutional authority "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions." 

George Mason, author of the 2nd, rhetorically asked, "What is the militia? It is the whole people." 

We have a fairly large segment of the population that is trying to either limit, or remove the right. Opinion: A gun owner’s call for banning assault weapons

As it stands now, do you know what percentage of the population has lost their right to keep and bear arms as the Founders intended? If you don't count police and military, it is 100%. Why would I focus on a loosing battle, when the solution was given to us by those who wrote our founding documents. Militia is mentioned 4 times in the body of the Constitution, and the pro-2nd community focuses on one aspect. 

Here is one of my articles that might give you some answers; Stand Your Ground

 

[TheShootist 3]

18 hours ago, USRifle30Cal said:

I want to make sure i understand your position, so i am perfectly and 100% clear.

Is it your belief that the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms, is only valid when and in conjunction with them being in a state militia?

No the right and the duty are synonymus, but 99% of the so-called pro-2nd community don't want anything to do with the duty that protects the right. Your individual right is linked to the body that is there "to execute the Laws of the Union", so that government is unable to even pass laws restricting your right. 

The misunderstanding comes from the fact that no one reads the Constitution, and the myriad of state statutes surrounding this subject.

Here is one of my articles; Stand Your Ground

[TheShootist 3]

18 hours ago, voyager9 said:

I’m a layman and have only skimmed a lot of them posts. 

My understanding is that he is standing that on its head. “The Militia” is defined as almost everyone in the country “the people “ and therefor not only is the government prohibited from baning most firearms but everyone is required to possess in case they are needed to be called up in defense of the country. 

So you don’t have to belong to a militia to own. In fact you are in a militia as part of citizenship and are required to own. 

That's pretty close, but the requirement would be for able-bodied men. Other's could contribute by helping an able-bodied man who couldn't afford an assault rifle purchase one. That is actually in the state militia statutes. 

Here's one of my articles; Stand Your Ground

[TheShootist 3]

18 hours ago, jackandjill said:

THAT is something a simpleton like me can understand. Thank You (and I mean it). 

If I were to extend that, ANYONE ( by virtue of being a citizen, hence part of militia, hence govt cannot restrict) can bring a case.

So my question to @TheShooter, what is it that Dr. Vieira waiting or ? No need for "the cause" to arise (it has already risen by virtue of Federal Laws against many categories of fierarms) and certainly no need for NRA (or any other organization that Dr. Vieira is complaining about) to approve, disapprove or even be part of it. There is not even need for any "community" to support it.  If someone is so confident that they can beat it at SCOTUS, then they should bring a case TODAY.

 

Would you like to bring a case?

This requires quite a bit of explanation that starts at Article 3 that the congress has changed without an amendment.

I have a plan to start, and if I can get substantial support from people such as yourself we can put it into the works.

17 hours ago, Zeke said:

I’m pretty sure the shootist is the Dr

jus sayen ( you guys knew that, I’m jus making it public)

 

hmmm, where all these hits coming from

No. I'm not Dr. Vieira, but I am fairly knowledgeable on the subject. 

[TheShootist 3]

17 hours ago, voyager9 said:

I’ll admit that premise doesn’t sit well with me. I struggle to define why.  It seems a bridge too far. 

Here is one of my articles read it and let me know if you change.

Stand Your Ground

[jackandjill 683]

11 minutes ago, TheShootist said:

Would you like to bring a case?

This requires quite a bit of explanation that starts at Article 3 that the congress has changed without an amendment.

I have a plan to start, and if I can get substantial support from people such as yourself we can put it into the works.

No. I'm not Dr. Vieira, but I am fairly knowledgeable on the subject. 

Why not Dr. Vieira himself or thousands of oathkeepers or even better, someone from a State that already has constitutional carry and very pro-2A, has a State constitution with clear 2A verbiage, so one doesn't have to engage in legal fight against a Nazi State like NJ and go directly against  Federal laws ?

Is Dr. Vieira ready to argue a case on pro-bono basis ?

In my humble opinion, it could not get any worse than starting with NJ for something like this.

@Mrs. Peel is waiting for me to adopt her (thats an inside joke she knows :-)) , but I would donate some money and time if Dr. Vieira were to bring a serious case to SCOTUS.

[voyager9 3,434]

Kolbe cert denied

[Darrenf 422]

6 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

Kolbe cert denied

Damn it.  We seriously need that 5th justice soon!