Concealed Carry without a permit?

[jhodge83]

Ok, now that I see your viewpoint, I have a free questions:

What state do you live in?
Who is the militia?
What do you consider a free state?

you can see what state i live in...
my thoughts of a militia fit this definitioin.....all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
well, prior to the civil war, a free state was one that did not support slavery. that is now obsolete.

 

[LkWd_Don]

It already says exactly that.... It is those like you who do not know how to read or comprehend the meanings of words that dont understand it....

I somewhat agree with you. It is clear to me that you and I are reading the 2A in virtually verbatim means.
The problem is that there are many who try to use today's rules of grammar to redefine what was said in nearly 240 year old gramme.
And it hinges on those silly comma's which today might have been semicolons as they need not maintain a direct relation to each other but to maintain the common thread only.
I read down further and see where Firefighterchen nails it.

We have a right to a militia, to create/organize/sustain a militia. That shall not be infringed.
This militia is necessary to the security of a free state. That shall not be infringed.
We the people, have the right to keep and bear arms (weapons of any kind). That shall not be infringed.

But because so few fully understand it that way, I was suggesting that if it be rewritten, it be done in a way that would be incontrovertible and in a way that would even allow the Law Abiding citizens in Illinois to exercise their rights again as THEY deem is needed.

 

[jhodge83]

But because so few fully understand it that way, I was suggesting that if it be rewritten, it be done in a way that would be incontrovertible and in a way that would even allow the Law Abiding citizens in Illinois to exercise their rights again as THEY deem is needed.

i agree about the rewrite. i fully support 2A, but the way it's written makes it look different. there have been a lot of changes to the english language in the past 200+ years.

 

[LkWd_Don]

you can see what state i live in...
my thoughts of a militia fit this definitioin.....all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
well, prior to the civil war, a free state was one that did not support slavery. that is now obsolete.

Those are misconceptions that have been perpetrated continuously over the years.
First the Militia.. All United States Citizens willing to fight were considered to be the Militia. Until Congress created a branch of the Military called the Militia which we now know of as the National Guard. As at the signing and Ratification of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Congress had not yet created the Militia... revert to the original meaning in reading the 2A.
Free State was the same as Sovereign State which meant any State that considered itself to be free of the Rule of Great Britain.

 

[jhodge83]

Those are misconceptions that have been perpetrated continuously over the years.
First the Militia.. All United States Citizens willing to fight were considered to be the Militia. Until Congress created a branch of the Military called the Militia which we now know of as the National Guard. As at the signing and Ratification of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Congress had not yet created the Militia... revert to the original meaning in reading the 2A.
Free State was the same as Sovereign State which meant any State that considered itself to be free of the Rule of Great Britain.

guess i'm militia in more ways than one.

 

[Firefighterchen]

you can see what state i live in...
my thoughts of a militia fit this definitioin.....all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
well, prior to the civil war, a free state was one that did not support slavery. that is now obsolete.

Ah, i knew it was somewhere, I just didn't look hard enough. SC. As far as the militia, refer to below at my response to Don. You didn't answer my last question, what do YOU think is a free state?

Those are misconceptions that have been perpetrated continuously over the years.
First the Militia.. All United States Citizens willing to fight were considered to be the Militia. Until Congress created a branch of the Military called the Militia which we now know of as the National Guard. As at the signing and Ratification of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Congress had not yet created the Militia... revert to the original meaning in reading the 2A.
Free State was the same as Sovereign State which meant any State that considered itself to be free of the Rule of Great Britain.

Here is my problem with stating the NG is the militia, and since I know I do not speak as well as others, I will quote, "This argument runs into problems. One of those problems is a Supreme Court ruling from 1990, in the case of Perpich vs. DoD. In this case, the governor of Minnesota, Rudy Perpich, sued the Department of Defense for mobilizing the Minnesota National Guard, which Perpich claimed was a "state militia," for duty outside the state, without the consent of Perpich or the state legislature. The Supreme Court rejected his claim, on the grounds that the National Guard is an integral part of the U.S. Army Reserve system (which means, in turn, that the NG is part of the standing army). SCOTUS went on to illustrate the difference between the "special militia" (the NG, in this case), and the "general militia" (private citizens with privately owned arms)."

I agree, we must revert back to what their militia was, pre-NG, and that is, all of us are the militia, because all of us, are supposed to be free men. Free men fight for their freedom. And when I say men, I mean everyone, men, women, and children, will have to fight for their freedom. Whether or not I call myself the militia, I will always be part of "the people" have the right to keep and bear arms. Always.

 

[wolf_fire]

The platform the person's who support the 2nd Amendment generally have is that we are "law-abiding citizens" who wish to be able to protect ourselves from whatever might harm us. Screw what he "feels" is his right, and find out for sure what he can and cannot do in the state of Florida. If carrying concealed in Florida is a crime then show him in the books what the crime is and with what penalty comes with it. If, however, he knows it is not legal and he is going to be that flippant about the law, I for one would never hang out with him again and would explain very clearly why not.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Link Removed

This photo and my quote above came from:

Armed and Safe: Who is the militia?

 

[LkWd_Don]

guess i'm militia in more ways than one.

As are many of us here. I may not have been National Guard, but I served till I earned a retirement and I am still serving our Country in every-way I possibly can to maintain our freedoms and liberties. Should a need arise that I be called to arms.. as decrepit as I am.. I will be there.

 

[shane34652]

if not a felon then tell him to take a class $60 to $120 depending on how competent the instructor is. the more you pay the more you get out of it. and the state fee is about $175 for the permit. now figure out the cost of a lawyer and tell me which is the smarter option.

 

[LkWd_Don]

Here is my problem with stating the NG is the militia, and since I know I do not speak as well as others, I will quote, "This argument runs into problems. One of those problems is a Supreme Court ruling from 1990, in the case of Perpich vs. DoD. In this case, the governor of Minnesota, Rudy Perpich, sued the Department of Defense for mobilizing the Minnesota National Guard, which Perpich claimed was a "state militia," for duty outside the state, without the consent of Perpich or the state legislature. The Supreme Court rejected his claim, on the grounds that the National Guard is an integral part of the U.S. Army Reserve system (which means, in turn, that the NG is part of the standing army). SCOTUS went on to illustrate the difference between the "special militia" (the NG, in this case), and the "general militia" (private citizens with privately owned arms)."
.

I wasn't able to find the history I was looking for. But I did find this at: Guard Basics | NATIONAL GUARD
The National Guard is the oldest military branch.
The National Guard’s roots date back to 1636, when colonial militias—made up of ordinary citizens—would put down their plows and pick up their weapons to protect Families and towns from hostile attacks. Today, Citizen-Soldiers hold civilian jobs or attend college while training part time, staying ready to defend America in the event of an emergency.
As this isn't what I was really looking for, I will look for more. But until like 1950 the US National Guard was referred to as the Department of the Militia and all the other services fell under the War Department. When Congress decided that sounded too adversarial, they redesignated the War Department as the Department of Defense and then re-wrote the laws and included the Militia into it as the National Guard.

Now to your question of Constitutionality of Congress calling forth the Militia: Please read The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Clause 15 where it says, To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Being that the United States is the Union, then if the SCOTUS was saying that Congress could not call up the National Guard, then the SCOTUS was clearly wrong as in our Constitutions Article 1 Section 8 clause 15 they can do it.

 

[Axeanda45]

Here is an excerpt out of the linked article I posted before, which is from one of the most renowned linguistic scholars of today:

If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."

 

[Firefighterchen]

I wasn't able to find the history I was looking for. But I did find this at: Guard Basics | NATIONAL GUARD
The National Guard is the oldest military branch.
The National Guard’s roots date back to 1636, when colonial militias—made up of ordinary citizens—would put down their plows and pick up their weapons to protect Families and towns from hostile attacks. Today, Citizen-Soldiers hold civilian jobs or attend college while training part time, staying ready to defend America in the event of an emergency.
As this isn't what I was really looking for, I will look for more. But until like 1950 the US National Guard was referred to as the Department of the Militia and all the other services fell under the War Department. When Congress decided that sounded too advasarial, they redesignated the War Department as the Department of Defense and then re-wrote the laws and included the Militia into it as the National Guard.

I see, so at some point the NG was actually a militia, but was absorbed into our standing army in the 1950's. Is that what you are saying?

 

[LkWd_Don]

I see, so at some point the NG was actually a militia, but was absorbed into our standing army in the 1950's. Is that what you are saying?

That's close to being what happened. They had their own department but were still subordinate to the War Dept and both were subordinate to Congress. Congress basically made things a bit easier.

I did edit my response above to include how our Constitution reads on the Militia, so you may not have caught that yet.. But in 1990 if I am not mistaken, the reserves and NG were being called up to support the Active Forces for Desert Shield/Storm, and as I recall it was with an Act passed by Congress citing the War Powers to allow it. So, I have no idea why the SCOTUS even got involved.

 

[Firefighterchen]

That's close to being what happened. They had their own department but were still subordinate to the War Dept and both were subordinate to Congress. Congress basically made things a bit easier.

I did edit my response above to include how our Constitution reads on the Militia, so you may not have caught that yet.. But in 1990 if I am not mistaken, the reserves and NG were being called up to support the Active Forces for Desert Shield/Storm, and as I recall it was with an Act passed by Congress citing the War Powers to allow it. So, I have no idea why the SCOTUS even got involved.

So I guess my next question is, is todays NG a militia still? And if they are not, does congress have powers to call on the militia of today (aka a draft since we are the militia)?

>>

 

[LkWd_Don]

So I guess my next question is, is todays NG a militia still? And if they are not, does congress have powers to call on the militia of today (aka a draft since we are the militia)?
>>

The National Guard website claims it is the Militia and cite their history going back to 1636. As our Constitution indicates that Congress was directed by WE the People in that constitution in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 16, 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; The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
I would say that Yes,, our NG of today is what our Constitution intended for Congress to maintain.
As for your question about Selective Service (Draft) While you are on Article 1, Section 8 read clause 18 where it says: 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.

 

[jhodge83]

Here is my problem with stating the NG is the militia, and since I know I do not speak as well as others, I will quote, "This argument runs into problems. One of those problems is a Supreme Court ruling from 1990, in the case of Perpich vs. DoD. In this case, the governor of Minnesota, Rudy Perpich, sued the Department of Defense for mobilizing the Minnesota National Guard, which Perpich claimed was a "state militia," for duty outside the state, without the consent of Perpich or the state legislature. The Supreme Court rejected his claim, on the grounds that the National Guard is an integral part of the U.S. Army Reserve system (which means, in turn, that the NG is part of the standing army). SCOTUS went on to illustrate the difference between the "special militia" (the NG, in this case), and the "general militia" (private citizens with privately owned arms)."

the issue w/ that govenor's claim is that the national guard, army and AF, wear dual hats. they are at the call of the govenor of their state and serve a federal mission under their respective branch.

As are many of us here. I may not have been National Guard, but I served till I earned a retirement and I am still serving our Country in every-way I possibly can to maintain our freedoms and liberties. Should a need arise that I be called to arms.. as decrepit as I am.. I will be there.

i still have 12 more years to hit 20.

Here is an excerpt out of the linked article I posted before, which is from one of the most renowned linguistic scholars of today:

If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."

if it were rewritten, i would see that as a more straight forward approach.

So I guess my next question is, is todays NG a militia still? And if they are not, does congress have powers to call on the militia of today (aka a draft since we are the militia)?

>>

NG can be called to serve a federal mission at any time. i just got back from a federal mission as part of the iraq drawdown back in Dec.

 

[LkWd_Don]

i still have 12 more years to hit 20.

Thank you for your service! May it be long and fruitful for you.

 

[jhodge83]

Thank you for your service! May it be long and fruitful for you.

thank you. trying to go officer if/when i can.

 

[RSJ]

Not a good idea at all!!!