Runboard.com
You're welcome.

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)


Page:  1  2  3 

 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 3948
Karma: 2 (+14/-12)
Reply | Quote
A yet seen Legal interpretation


On the Second Amendment.

Attorney I keep on retainer and I were finishing some business mainly in regard to our Estate Trust. The subject of the Second Amendment came up to which he offered this valued take.
The statement is garnered in Three parts or subsections intertwined but three defined separate components;
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The first as to Militia. In 1791 the need on the frontier for citizen members of a defensive force was a necessity, where supplemental aspect for regular Troops of the nation were a benefit not just a Department as seen in the modern day with National Guard, reserves etc.
Being necessary to [A] Free State. This is NOT a reference to the existing 'States' but a frame of reference to each man.
IE: State OF Mind, State Of Freedom, a condition or status not a physical section of ground of statehood, had it been that the statement would read Free State(s), Freedom of the States, maintaining Freedom of the national citizens, not of A Free State.
Finally a Given Right as to the citizen not infringed as to possession or ownership of firearms.
The key is to remember the language 'Style' the demographic styles of the written language of the day
12/24/2017, 10:32 pm Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 
Yobbo Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 2444
Karma: 18 (+26/-8)
Reply | Quote
Re: A yet seen Legal interpretation


Who decides that the militia needs to take action? And when? And how?
12/25/2017, 6:58 pm Link to this post PM Yobbo
 
snowpixie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1403
Karma: 9 (+13/-4)
Reply | Quote
Re: A yet seen Legal interpretation


i hope your lawyer wasn't charging you by the hour for his interpretation.

12/25/2017, 7:40 pm Link to this post PM snowpixie Blog
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 3948
Karma: 2 (+14/-12)
Reply | Quote
Re: A yet seen Legal interpretation


No, just sitting talking as he ended his day. He also a deer hunter.

It was brought to his attention by his instructor at College with the rest of his class(1967) as to the definitions and interpretation as to time period and designs of the founders.

Militia were called up as needed by local agents or other neighbors as could be contacted during those times, should they be needed for active service they were called up for assembly under Federal military governance. The major function was that of availability during times of trouble and strife to fend off the Native Indians, attackers from other nations and to assist in criminal apprehensions.

John was very enlightening and offered up the given issuance as to the amendment openly and for you pixie, Free.
12/25/2017, 8:32 pm Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 
Yobbo Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 2444
Karma: 18 (+26/-8)
Reply | Quote
Re: A yet seen Legal interpretation


What would happen if a group calling themselves militia decided that the US declaring war was unlawful and they took on the government?
It seems to me that they would be cleaned up in an afternoon and either die or spend some time in jail.
12/26/2017, 12:34 am Link to this post PM Yobbo
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 3948
Karma: 2 (+14/-12)
Reply | Quote
Re: A yet seen Legal interpretation


A Militia is dependent on the Government in as much as allowance of existence. It also is the juxtaposed reserves by which a Government can repel enemies entering and seeking to depose.

If you check the US Military Oath that all of us as enlistees and inductees pledged to, it was the Protection of the Constitution and the people of the United States. The Government was a side note to that oath. We swore allegiance to that level and as such could not EVER draw weapons in a state of War against our citizenry. Vs a Vs the same would hold true to the Militia you infer, that they are willing to sacrifice themselves to protect their families, their brothers and countrymen against invaders and to uphold the Constitution as well.

A Federal Governing agency(the People ARE the Government) if so chooses to attempt to become a Reigning sovereign would not bode as Constitutional.
12/26/2017, 9:07 pm Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 
Yobbo Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 2444
Karma: 18 (+26/-8)
Reply | Quote
Re: A yet seen Legal interpretation


Then what is the significance of the second ammendment?
12/26/2017, 10:59 pm Link to this post PM Yobbo
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 3212
Karma: 24 (+27/-3)
Reply | Quote
Re: A yet seen Legal interpretation


quote:

Yobbo wrote:

Then what is the significance of the second ammendment?



It's something to talk about if you don't want to see the freedom to own guns limited. In reality despite the second amendment the government has all the power it needs to limit gun ownership and it does so in the case of ex-convicts and others it deems unqualified to keep and bear arms.

12/27/2017, 12:46 am Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
Yobbo Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 2444
Karma: 18 (+26/-8)
Reply | Quote
Re: A yet seen Legal interpretation


It is just a sop to the fantasies of Americans who dream that the wild west is reality.
12/27/2017, 3:58 am Link to this post PM Yobbo
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 3948
Karma: 2 (+14/-12)
Reply | Quote
Re: A yet seen Legal interpretation


quote:

Philer wrote:

quote:

Yobbo wrote:

Then what is the significance of the second ammendment?



It's something to talk about if you don't want to see the freedom to own guns limited. In reality despite the second amendment the government has all the power it needs to limit gun ownership and it does so in the case of ex-convicts and others it deems unqualified to keep and bear arms.




You do know there are Federal statute that does make it Illegal for those EVER convicted of a Felony from owning weapons? Of those Convicted of Domestic Abuse or having mental instability are included in that. There are restrictions that so many dismiss that ARE on the books and yet keep being called up for addition.

Feinstein and Pelosi live in a TV Media world where all the people in the US are carrying guns LEGALLY regardless the laws written they seem to have ZERO knowledge or touch with. They are constantly throwing out the CC Reciprocity Law will allow criminals to legally carry where it is ALREADY illegal for those people to own or handle.
12/27/2017, 1:36 pm Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3 





You are not logged in (login)