Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Psssssssssssssst Public Threat Yeager can no longer legally carry a a handgun [View all]jody
(26,624 posts)49. From DC v Heller,
a. Well-Regulated Militia. In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939) , we explained that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster (The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades
and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations); The Federalist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison) (near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) ([T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms).
Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that [m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 1516). Brief for Petitioners 12. Although we agree with petitioners interpretive assumption that militia means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment , we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (to raise Armies; to provide a Navy, Art. I, §8, cls. 1213), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to provide for calling forth the militia, §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to organiz[e] itand not to organize a militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize the militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia. Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.
Finally, the adjective well-regulated implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (Regulate: To adjust by rule or method); Rawle 121122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms).
Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that [m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 1516). Brief for Petitioners 12. Although we agree with petitioners interpretive assumption that militia means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment , we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (to raise Armies; to provide a Navy, Art. I, §8, cls. 1213), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to provide for calling forth the militia, §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to organiz[e] itand not to organize a militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize the militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia. Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.
Finally, the adjective well-regulated implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (Regulate: To adjust by rule or method); Rawle 121122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms).
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
155 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Psssssssssssssst Public Threat Yeager can no longer legally carry a a handgun [View all]
malaise
Jan 2013
OP
I don't think that will stop him. Peaple who lose Driver's License still drive.
SharonAnn
Jan 2013
#155
laugh at it BUT my wife has worked for a right wing telemarketing company. She's seen the scripts
diabeticman
Jan 2013
#2
Could be. Joe sure helped sink McCain's ship, this nutjob could do the same for someone ...
Scuba
Jan 2013
#6
If he were brown, with a Muslim surname, you can bet your hiney he'd be in custody, and the right...
Tarheel_Dem
Jan 2013
#68
Actually, the righties would demand no trial for the brown Muslim and indefinite detention at GITMO.
muntrv
Jan 2013
#151
Who cares? These gun nuts are increasingly irrelevant to the arguments. They can rally around loons
alcibiades_mystery
Jan 2013
#53
Indeed! There's the flashpoint the gentleman has been waiting for! Dare I say, "Bring it on!"?
Nay
Jan 2013
#41
The increased threats from him and his nutbag colleagues really have me nervous
mfcorey1
Jan 2013
#5
I've been freaked about these guys since Medgar Evers was murdered at his own home.
freshwest
Jan 2013
#81
I fear one of these mental midgets is going to have one too many beers and....
Left Coast2020
Jan 2013
#154
Now he's in his house with 100 guns and a doubled down bad temper. He doesn't care about a permit.
Sunlei
Jan 2013
#125
You don't know the effect of removing a person's civil rights? Better read about Parks and King. nt
jody
Jan 2013
#25
Good question. I don't know of any legal way to deny just one of a person's civil rights. Do you? nt
jody
Jan 2013
#34
My post was for graduate-school level understanding. Apparently I overestimated the ability of some.
jody
Jan 2013
#58
Present a clear and present danger or threat to society, or any elected officials...
VOX
Jan 2013
#127
Ignore the troll. He's all butthurt because his terrorist buddy lost his Precious.
kestrel91316
Jan 2013
#67
Heller is the law of the land at this time. Well regulated and militia are not needed because
jody
Jan 2013
#57
Nothing more dangerous than a bunch of constipated old men with loaded guns
BlueStreak
Jan 2013
#123
I hope people like him keep making youtube videos since they reveal themselves to be the dicks
Politicub
Jan 2013
#36
He said he'd start killing people if the gov took his guns... Well, look what just happened.
livefromsac
Jan 2013
#39
He can still fight without his arms. Unless he was rendered toothless, no need to give up now.
freshwest
Jan 2013
#141
Is that the jackass with the tattoos looking into his little camera and making murderous threats?
calimary
Jan 2013
#42
Wait - they took his permit. That's just a piece of paper. They need to confiscate his firearms
Flatulo
Jan 2013
#47
The guy "self-registered" on the mental health no-carry list. They just MIGHT
WheelWalker
Jan 2013
#90
Might have something to do with the fact that his paranoid rantings come off as the rantings of a
RomneyLies
Jan 2013
#115
I wonder what handle he posts under down in the Gungeon? As a "pro gun progressive,"* of course...
apocalypsehow
Jan 2013
#124
If he lost a Concealed carry, then he just straps a cowboy holster on..........
kooljerk666
Jan 2013
#137
Guy sees holes in the world & calls em danger, but the only holes are in his head
toby jo
Jan 2013
#139