Post by ajacksonian on Jun 19, 2006 11:15:18 GMT -5
There really is no way that I can shorten this for full backing and comprehension beyond what I have already done. It started with a realization that there was a space or gap in the various by-play of powers and responsibilities that had been ignored since the Founding. It is, all told, minor in conception and, really, a vibrant Nation just coming to grips with itself as a Nation didn't really need it. The Federal Government promised protection and generally did so. And as we had seen little of invaders or times of Danger warranting intervention a bit more quickly than that provided by Government... well... who needed it? So a small proviso for what States may do was generally just left to sit in Article I, Section 10.
Some years back I realized that there are two ways to actually use rights: one is the 'I have it and more or less use it and that is how I uphold it' and the other is 'I do something useful with my rights to make MORE rights as we get an unlimited number of them, save those set aside for Government'. Amendment II is a foundation for the Republic. It not only permits a military but an active use or arms by the Citizenry. Note the use of the word 'arms' and 'well regulated Militia'. Now, in the period of standing up a Nation this meant, of course, those States military units put under Federal control for the Militia, but generally having the right of Citizens to be armed be unabridged. At least I read it that way.
So I asked myself: Is there a way to combine a non-standing force with an armed Citizenry that is OUTSIDE the Federal purview?
I came to an affirmative answer on that here: ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2006/01/guns-dont-kill-people.html
Note that I use 'arms' in the generic sense as anyone capable of intentional lethal use of force by knowing methods of doing so is considered 'armed'. A Jihadi driving a bus through bystanders is a maniac that needs be shot, but buses are not generally made to be 'arms'. A similar individual using an AK-47, on the other hand, is considered 'armed'... or one with a sword ready to chop off someone's head, that individual is also 'armed'. As the Constitution makes no differentiation in Amendment II, neither do I.
Now, the Constitution requires due process above all things, and it has already stated that there can be regulation for a 'Militia' and so I would see it with a non-standing Armed Citizens capability to act in defense of their State. I actually set out a draft overview of what a State could do to remain within the Constitution but have something faster than Federal or even their own regular Police to respond to invasion or Danger. And I give large thanks to the drafters of the Constitution for realizing the problem that Shay's Rebellion posed, even to a Federal Government and giving States leeway to get things done on their own until more regular responses can arrive.
But this, as I thought about, led me to the question, then: what area of law is this? It was not, categorically as it is reserved to the States, Federal law which can only limit some types of weapons to the Citizenry but not prevent the Citizenry from creating their own nor being armed in general. The Federal Government, when lax in crisis, has given this over to the States to handle until the Federal response is forthcoming. So scotch this being on a Federal level, outside of some weapons types.
Was this Civil Criminal law? Well now, by putting in the State's right to survive with the Amendment II right of the Citizenry anyone using force of arms illegally was threatening both as they are now *combined* by that State. Thus, illegal use of arms is not only a Civil Criminal offense, but a higher one of improper use of arms in an area not to enhance the Citizen's rights to arms nor to defend the State. Using arms in criminal activity was something *else*.
So, what to do? I looked at Amendment II and realized that a non-standing Militia would *also* need due process regulation and thus a law system put forward by the State. At the Federal level this is the UCMJ. At the State level this is.... not there. Tricky, but not insurmountable.
Using the UCMJ and Courts Martial proceedings as a guideline, this area of law would be one that is supervised by those cognizant of the use of force as Armed Citizens. If you use arms, then you *also* get the right to oversee this area and adjudicate on it. From that the pieces fell into place and things formed up. I go over it in detail here: ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2006/04/not-federal-not-civil-but-states.html
What you then get out of all of this is a non-standing capability that is distributed across the population and that comes together when regular forces cannot respond. Of course all the other existent and legal use of arms is kept: self-defense, defense of property, sporting, hunting, practice, target capability, sniping... all of that is kept. Use of force outside of those areas is a crime that requires a 'show cause' court for those using such arms to tell to their Armed Citizen peers why, exactly, their use of arms was legitimate. Notice this is *not* a civil trial. It is possible to actually advance a legal reason to use arms and still get a civil conviction of a crime without double-jeopardy being invoked as these are two separate *classes* of the law.
Generally the complaints I have heard come from a couple of main viewpoints. The first is that of the 'I gots my arms and to hell with using it for anything except myself'. A valid viewpoint to a degree, but does nothing to actually make the Republic stronger and, in fact, generally puts forward the idea that the Citizenry that is Armed is generally one that seeks its own, selfish reasons for having same. It does not use the right for anything beyond that of the individual nor builds upon it and, in point of fact, diminishes it in the view of the general Citizenry.
The other side is actually trying to make this work and the problems it entails. That is where my second chronological but really last area falls: that of handing over the means to outline the uses of Arms to the Citizenry. General areas for what may and may not be done are already set up, but to be a cognizant user of Arms that can be seen as safely knowing how to use such and putting that forward for the good of the Citizenry, the best people to decide that are... those that use those arms. Regulation by the Citizenry given due process oversight by the State. And a way to regularize that I go over here: thejacksonianparty.blogspot.com/2006/03/regularizing-weaponry-for-state.html
So, the upshot of this is: are We the People being well served on National Security by Our Federal Government?
As I look at the southern border and incursions by Mexican Federal Forces and see folks with ties to foreign Narco/Terrorist groups, and foreign gangs roaming the Nation, and then look at the aftermath of Katrina and know this is only a foretaste of what we have coming up over the next 50 years or so... I started to get a very, very uneasy feeling about things. Handing many things over to the Federal Government, be it Education or Social welfare or Corporate welfare seems to have gotten us much in the way of dependency upon that Government and that Government has become extremely lax in actually protecting the People and the States.
We the People are not powerless as the basis for this Republic. But getting past the problems put forward by the Zero Party State have become nearly impossible at the Federal level. So moving one notch down We the People can join with Our States and do something *different* and perhaps better. Secure Our lives and our liberties without endangering either, and yet shifting some burden to the Citizenry to help in their own defense. I've have always enjoyed the 'well, I will use my weapon to defend the country when we are under siege...' folks. Do they really mean to say the Nation is only worth defending once the problem is on their doorstep? How about helping out a bit before then so it doesn't get that far in the first place?
Because the problem now *is* on the doorstep. In our towns and communities. And yet no one really wants to step forward and give something *better* for the Republic and We the People. It is a burden, but can be shared by all those who arm themselves and adhere to the law and administer it. Spread that out and the weight is lessened by shared burden and We are generally uplifted as a Whole. And I would truly enjoy the day when MS-13 gang members are handed over to the FBI from the States and told: "Here are some international terrorists for you. We expect something to be done about them where they come from as we are tired of having them getting to us in the first place."
And if an Armed Citizen is ever fired upon in such a State that takes up this burden with its Citizens? That is not an act of war... it IS war. I wish people would treat it as such.
Some years back I realized that there are two ways to actually use rights: one is the 'I have it and more or less use it and that is how I uphold it' and the other is 'I do something useful with my rights to make MORE rights as we get an unlimited number of them, save those set aside for Government'. Amendment II is a foundation for the Republic. It not only permits a military but an active use or arms by the Citizenry. Note the use of the word 'arms' and 'well regulated Militia'. Now, in the period of standing up a Nation this meant, of course, those States military units put under Federal control for the Militia, but generally having the right of Citizens to be armed be unabridged. At least I read it that way.
So I asked myself: Is there a way to combine a non-standing force with an armed Citizenry that is OUTSIDE the Federal purview?
I came to an affirmative answer on that here: ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2006/01/guns-dont-kill-people.html
Note that I use 'arms' in the generic sense as anyone capable of intentional lethal use of force by knowing methods of doing so is considered 'armed'. A Jihadi driving a bus through bystanders is a maniac that needs be shot, but buses are not generally made to be 'arms'. A similar individual using an AK-47, on the other hand, is considered 'armed'... or one with a sword ready to chop off someone's head, that individual is also 'armed'. As the Constitution makes no differentiation in Amendment II, neither do I.
Now, the Constitution requires due process above all things, and it has already stated that there can be regulation for a 'Militia' and so I would see it with a non-standing Armed Citizens capability to act in defense of their State. I actually set out a draft overview of what a State could do to remain within the Constitution but have something faster than Federal or even their own regular Police to respond to invasion or Danger. And I give large thanks to the drafters of the Constitution for realizing the problem that Shay's Rebellion posed, even to a Federal Government and giving States leeway to get things done on their own until more regular responses can arrive.
But this, as I thought about, led me to the question, then: what area of law is this? It was not, categorically as it is reserved to the States, Federal law which can only limit some types of weapons to the Citizenry but not prevent the Citizenry from creating their own nor being armed in general. The Federal Government, when lax in crisis, has given this over to the States to handle until the Federal response is forthcoming. So scotch this being on a Federal level, outside of some weapons types.
Was this Civil Criminal law? Well now, by putting in the State's right to survive with the Amendment II right of the Citizenry anyone using force of arms illegally was threatening both as they are now *combined* by that State. Thus, illegal use of arms is not only a Civil Criminal offense, but a higher one of improper use of arms in an area not to enhance the Citizen's rights to arms nor to defend the State. Using arms in criminal activity was something *else*.
So, what to do? I looked at Amendment II and realized that a non-standing Militia would *also* need due process regulation and thus a law system put forward by the State. At the Federal level this is the UCMJ. At the State level this is.... not there. Tricky, but not insurmountable.
Using the UCMJ and Courts Martial proceedings as a guideline, this area of law would be one that is supervised by those cognizant of the use of force as Armed Citizens. If you use arms, then you *also* get the right to oversee this area and adjudicate on it. From that the pieces fell into place and things formed up. I go over it in detail here: ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2006/04/not-federal-not-civil-but-states.html
What you then get out of all of this is a non-standing capability that is distributed across the population and that comes together when regular forces cannot respond. Of course all the other existent and legal use of arms is kept: self-defense, defense of property, sporting, hunting, practice, target capability, sniping... all of that is kept. Use of force outside of those areas is a crime that requires a 'show cause' court for those using such arms to tell to their Armed Citizen peers why, exactly, their use of arms was legitimate. Notice this is *not* a civil trial. It is possible to actually advance a legal reason to use arms and still get a civil conviction of a crime without double-jeopardy being invoked as these are two separate *classes* of the law.
Generally the complaints I have heard come from a couple of main viewpoints. The first is that of the 'I gots my arms and to hell with using it for anything except myself'. A valid viewpoint to a degree, but does nothing to actually make the Republic stronger and, in fact, generally puts forward the idea that the Citizenry that is Armed is generally one that seeks its own, selfish reasons for having same. It does not use the right for anything beyond that of the individual nor builds upon it and, in point of fact, diminishes it in the view of the general Citizenry.
The other side is actually trying to make this work and the problems it entails. That is where my second chronological but really last area falls: that of handing over the means to outline the uses of Arms to the Citizenry. General areas for what may and may not be done are already set up, but to be a cognizant user of Arms that can be seen as safely knowing how to use such and putting that forward for the good of the Citizenry, the best people to decide that are... those that use those arms. Regulation by the Citizenry given due process oversight by the State. And a way to regularize that I go over here: thejacksonianparty.blogspot.com/2006/03/regularizing-weaponry-for-state.html
So, the upshot of this is: are We the People being well served on National Security by Our Federal Government?
As I look at the southern border and incursions by Mexican Federal Forces and see folks with ties to foreign Narco/Terrorist groups, and foreign gangs roaming the Nation, and then look at the aftermath of Katrina and know this is only a foretaste of what we have coming up over the next 50 years or so... I started to get a very, very uneasy feeling about things. Handing many things over to the Federal Government, be it Education or Social welfare or Corporate welfare seems to have gotten us much in the way of dependency upon that Government and that Government has become extremely lax in actually protecting the People and the States.
We the People are not powerless as the basis for this Republic. But getting past the problems put forward by the Zero Party State have become nearly impossible at the Federal level. So moving one notch down We the People can join with Our States and do something *different* and perhaps better. Secure Our lives and our liberties without endangering either, and yet shifting some burden to the Citizenry to help in their own defense. I've have always enjoyed the 'well, I will use my weapon to defend the country when we are under siege...' folks. Do they really mean to say the Nation is only worth defending once the problem is on their doorstep? How about helping out a bit before then so it doesn't get that far in the first place?
Because the problem now *is* on the doorstep. In our towns and communities. And yet no one really wants to step forward and give something *better* for the Republic and We the People. It is a burden, but can be shared by all those who arm themselves and adhere to the law and administer it. Spread that out and the weight is lessened by shared burden and We are generally uplifted as a Whole. And I would truly enjoy the day when MS-13 gang members are handed over to the FBI from the States and told: "Here are some international terrorists for you. We expect something to be done about them where they come from as we are tired of having them getting to us in the first place."
And if an Armed Citizen is ever fired upon in such a State that takes up this burden with its Citizens? That is not an act of war... it IS war. I wish people would treat it as such.
