The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a motion with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking an injunction against a section of California’s penal code that prohibits young adults, ages 18-20 from purchasing or acquiring firearms... [More]
It argues extensively for the militia.
What I don't get is why it then goes out of its way to legitimize infringements outside of outright prohibition (p. 26):
These types of state militia regulations might conceivably provide historical support for general firearm safety regulations—such as California’s requirements, not challenged here, that all firearm owners or purchasers (including those aged 18-to-20) obtain a Firearms Safety Certificate or purchase safety devices such as trigger locks or guns safes, CAL. PENAL CODE §§ 23635, 26840, 31615.If "not challenged here" why volunteer that? What do "we" get in return? It's not necessary to add in order to seal the argument, it cedes incremental disarmament steps to the gun-grabbers and it misses a wider point.
I've had this out before with some legal types ostensibly on "our" side who, like the state, maintain militia requirements do not preclude registration. None of them take into account that there is a world of difference between enforcing disciplines with a mustered militia under orders and acting as a cohesive unit and imposing restrictions on citizens outside of that duty. It's the militia that is "well regulated."
Even I understand what "shall not be infringed" means, and I'm not a "Second Amendment attorney."
Change my mind.
5 comments:
No need to change your mind.
We need to re-culturalize the meaning of 'militia' so even 'our side' do not treat it as toxic.
As you have asked, what is the core purpose of the unorganized militia?
"If "not challenged here" why volunteer that? What do "we" get in return? It's not necessary to add in order to seal the argument"
But it's necessary to prevent a communist Attorney General from arguing in his response that that is what you are looking to do, and a biased judge from agreeing with the AG and dismissing your case outright. This is a tactic aimed at forcing the court to actually look at the precise claims being made and not dismissing them by association.
If you have a lawyer friend, ask him what purpose such statements serve.
The words "irrelevant" and "immaterial" come to mind. Meanwhile, you've given the enemy bragging rights to 2A advocates ceding legitimacy of prior restraints and infringements that they WILL use.
"As you have asked, what is the core purpose of the unorganized militia?"
One purpose, not the only one, but one that comes readily to mind, is to act as a sort of "fleet in being".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being
By existing, it adds an unknown threat quantity to the calculations of any possible OpFor. No one can know the size, armament, capabilities, or intention of the unorganized militia. The best that can be advanced are educated guesses. Mike cited a case where an FBI bigwig asked a militia leader if his folks would actually go to the next Waco or Ruby Ridge incident and take active part. The militia leader replied "Why would we do that? There are plenty of you Federal sumbitches right here!"
We can only make educated guess about the reasoning in Washington, but there have been no Wacos or Ruby Ridges lately.
I think it likely that those "known unknowns" about the unorganized militia are part of the reason.
As noted here:
That’s still a far cry from the so-called “unorganized militia” of United States Code, which, according to lawyer and Constitutional scholar Dr. Edwin Vieira, is in itself an example of Congressional “malfeasance… beyond the pale.”“Under no circumstances may Congress leave the Militia unorganized, unarmed, or undisciplined--let alone knowingly and intentionally impose such conditions,” Vieira instructs. The very term is “an oxymoron,” he shows.
Post a Comment