D.C. v. Heller: Militia, you say.. Part II

2008 Candidates, call your office. It's what 80 Million gun owners aren't that wins this issue.

By John Longenecker

The District of Columbia, which had gotten justice three times in adverse decisions that its gun ban was unconstitutional, does not debate, nor follow the law — it quarrels with a civil right. That quarrel involves defying the rulings handed them, being slippery, as in asserting that the District is exempt from the Constitution, that gun owners are 22 times more likely to kill each other, and other methods of trying the case in the media after it's already been ruled against them in their own back yard.

Click "Read More" to read the entire article.

Where framing-era language will reflect intent of the Founders, it is clear what Militia was not: it was not recognized as Military.

The question in D.C. v. Heller asks whether D.C. Code provisions violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.

This issue is disingenuously framed and it is without meaning. Here is why.

The suggestion within the pleading is that state-regulated militia is the only kind of militia. It is not. For instance, The Militia Act of 1792 and The Militia Act of 1903 both came into being to absorb and effectively to silence the militia of the framing era because Militia was legally independent of the Military and Commander-in-Chief. It was also independent of any state. Militia was not the same as Military. Limiting the issue in D.C. v. Heller is to mislead the question by omission, refusing to divulge the unorganized militia of today.

Also, non-gun owners need to understand that the idea of National Guard didn't come into existence until 130 years after the signing of the Constitution, so we know the Founders of the framing-era didn't mean state-regulated anything.

U.S. Code Title 10, Section 311 stakes out the unorganized Militia, which harkens back to the framing-era intent of the Founders that armed citizens be distinct from standing Army. The independence of the Militia was a threat to abusive political power by being an excellent and capable safeguard of the United States. By not being subject to the control of officials in any age or era, it still is a safeguard of the United States. Let us not confuse the interests of the United States with the desires of public servants (especially in how they ignore rulings while stating that we are a nation of laws). Militia as it is defined by U.S. Code co-exists with National Guard and has never gone out of existence. It never was a state-regulated entity.

U.S. Code Title 10, Section 311. . . [emphasis added]
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are —
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Paragraph (2) is what gives it all away: . . .who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. 80 million gun owners, some of whom reside in the District Of Columbia, are not members of the National Guard, which is a state-regulated agency. Paragraph (2) provides for the existence of Militia Citizens who are not necessarily part of a state-regulated militia, such as the National Guard.

In short, Citizens of the United States who are not members of the National Guard are a legitimate Militia. Limiting the question to state-regulated is the very thing the Founders loathed. Typical.

The pleading for ruling that a gunowner be a member of a state-regulated militia before enjoying a civil right is without meaning, because adults who are Citizens of the U.S. and not members of the Guard meet the test of militia. Put another way, the District misleads the question by insinuating that Heller is or must be a member of a group he is in actuality not required to be a member of.

In my opinion, the issue is not whether an individual must be part of a state-regulated anything to enjoy a right, a possible equal protection problem — the issue is whether private citizens of the United States are in fact supreme authority which authority is backed by lethal force. Such independence from official control would be, of course, a safeguard of the United States, and perhaps against the desires of officials who keep searching for another toss of the coin until it comes up their way.

So far, it hasn't. D.C. has ignored three court rulings.

Besides, the Second Amendment doesn't say state-regulated, it says well-regulated, and Citizen Authority has done an excellent job. Let us not forget the DOJ's conclusions in answer to the question on Militia: see http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf dated 8/24/2004.

2008 Candidates, call your office.

I know issues get narrow when they reach the Supreme Court, but servants may not disarm the supreme authority of this country.

See also shall not be infringed.