Runboard.com
You're welcome.

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


 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 3226
Karma: 4 (+14/-10)
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: 1959
Karma: 13 (+21/-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: 870
Karma: 6 (+10/-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: 3226
Karma: 4 (+14/-10)
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: 1959
Karma: 13 (+21/-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: 3226
Karma: 4 (+14/-10)
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: 1959
Karma: 13 (+21/-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: 2000
Karma: 12 (+14/-2)
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: 1959
Karma: 13 (+21/-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: 3226
Karma: 4 (+14/-10)
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
 
katie5445 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
Global user

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 3925
Karma: 25 (+39/-14)
Reply | Quote
Re: A yet seen Legal interpretation


Laws are made for criminals not for those who do the right thing. We've all read those "laws" on the books, I would say they aren't working and if you don't acknowledge that it can't be fixed. I call it denial. You can't just say laws are there, when these people still have the availability to mass weapons.
12/27/2017, 6:11 pm Link to this post PM katie5445 Blog
 
birdcharm Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2017
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 169
Karma: 2 (+3/-1)
Reply | Quote
Re: A yet seen Legal interpretation


I was just curious about the weapons of the time when militias were commonplace.

://]Musket balls - how to identify

]The inaccuracy of muskets
12/27/2017, 8:42 pm Link to this post PM birdcharm Blog
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 3226
Karma: 4 (+14/-10)
Reply | Quote
Re: A yet seen Legal interpretation


Alright Katie, you have posed the problem before, the laws in existence do not work or are not worked by the courts, your fix?

Take away the firearms of the law abiding that do NOT use them illicitly? Would intend no harm to others with them save under home protection and you would still remove them? What of the criminal, they already have them, if they do not they will get them so what then? More useless law or what?

12/27/2017, 9:30 pm Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 3226
Karma: 4 (+14/-10)
Reply | Quote
Re: A yet seen Legal interpretation


Birdcharm, the invention of rifling had already occurred prior to the US Revolution:

[sign in to see URL]

The common Long Rifle of the US Colonies were generally Blacksmith/Gunsmith custom built, each one unique, it was not until the 19th century did common fit mass produced parts come to exist, but rifling was prevalent in the day of note.
12/27/2017, 9:43 pm Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 3226
Karma: 4 (+14/-10)
Reply | Quote
Re: A yet seen Legal interpretation


GRAND Total, of all the US firearms in Private hands, LESS than .1% is used illegally, sold illegally or illicitly.

You pose issue on a very slim margin of error that benefits ONLY the criminal.
12/27/2017, 9:44 pm Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 
katie5445 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
Global user

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 3925
Karma: 25 (+39/-14)
Reply | Quote
Re: A yet seen Legal interpretation


 I've had weapons in my home and most my life, we discussed that several times. Registering, background checks, stop straw sales just as what is supported by majority of Americans. I would make a longer waiting period as well. I see no reason why anyone should own a weapon that shoots off hundreds of rounds in a minute! I have a problem with the HIPPAA laws and the mentally ill. We have made it close to impossible to have family intervention, police and doctors hands are tied. We had a schizoid living in our community for a year, he was taken away multi times, his son left him on his own, he chased a neighbor with a hammer, others with fallen branches, threw objects at them, pushed a couple women around, scared the crap out of kids, banned from the local shops for harassment, including sexual, he was in his home without electricity, food and water. He was in and out of jail or the psych ward, a few days here and there and let back out. He disappeared and I have no idea what happened to him, people like him need to be helped and people like him have access and do own guns.
12/27/2017, 9:55 pm Link to this post PM katie5445 Blog
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 3226
Karma: 4 (+14/-10)
Reply | Quote
Re: A yet seen Legal interpretation


I have a relative, (Cannot divulge relationship) entered service ATF. That person is now a member of the US DOJ in the ATF.

I asked the loaded question, How many in percent of total firearms are trackable to sales point when found in crimes. Was stated is LESS Than 2% in reality. How many are 'Stolen weapons' from US owners, was looked straight in the eye and informed those numbers are on the ATF site. Then I asked how many are shipped illegally across our national border from MX, Central America or the countries we have armed over the years. The answer was "Significant numbers" but cannot divulge the actual number as is DOJ protected information.

Hand guns, rifles(AR Style), weapons of our enemies(AK based) come across our national frontiers at a rate that was admitted as HIGH.

How do you 'Background Check' or FFL inspect those? How can at any inference or in any sense or sensibility be stopped? I posed that question, the response, "Can't".
12/27/2017, 10:16 pm Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 
katie5445 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
Global user

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 3925
Karma: 25 (+39/-14)
Reply | Quote
Re: A yet seen Legal interpretation


There is no "can't" look at all the weapons in Switzerland, then look at their gun laws and statistics. I am not talking about elimination of gun crime but reducing crime by guns, which is possible so it's not a "can't" it's a "won't."
12/28/2017, 1:17 am Link to this post PM katie5445 Blog
 
birdcharm Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2017
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 169
Karma: 2 (+3/-1)
Reply | Quote
Re: A yet seen Legal interpretation


quote:

cooter50 wrote:

Birdcharm, the invention of rifling had already occurred prior to the US Revolution:

[sign in to see URL]

The common Long Rifle of the US Colonies were generally Blacksmith/Gunsmith custom built, each one unique, it was not until the 19th century did common fit mass produced parts come to exist, but rifling was prevalent in the day of note.



As you have pointed out, rifles were available, although muskets may have been more common. From the link you provided: "The long rifle, also known as longrifle, Kentucky rifle, or Pennsylvania rifle, was one of the first commonly used rifles for hunting and warfare."

Yet, it is interesting, speaking of Pennsylvania ...

"Even following the war, after the Federal government had been established, the amount of arms available for the Pennsylvania line and riflemen was staggeringly low. The militia census of 1806 makes note that out of 80,061 privates, 2,881 sergeants, 3,352 riflemen, only 20,000 muskets and 3,352 rifles were on hand — meaning that only 27.1% of the total military force in Pennsylvania were armed."

"... The myth that guns were everywhere, and that everyone (or even every household) in Pennsylvania had a gun, has to be put to rest. While such a claim is probably true in certain parts of the country during the Revolutionary War, Pennsylvania holds a unique place in the history of gun culture. It remained a center of conflict for over two decades, and produced large numbers of troops—both Continental and militia—in support of the War for Independence. But proper acquisition, maintenance, and training with firearms just did not catch on."

]Source



Last edited by birdcharm, 12/28/2017, 2:55 am
12/28/2017, 2:55 am Link to this post PM birdcharm Blog
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 3226
Karma: 4 (+14/-10)
Reply | Quote
Re: A yet seen Legal interpretation


Need to look at facts not the left leaning gibberish:

[url][sign in to see URL]
12/28/2017, 12:32 pm Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 
birdcharm Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2017
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 169
Karma: 2 (+3/-1)
Reply | Quote
Re: A yet seen Legal interpretation


quote:

cooter50 wrote:

Need to look at facts not the left leaning gibberish:

[url][sign in to see URL]

The link I provided notes similar descriptions as the link you have provided. I'm not so sure that "Journal of the American Revolution" web site is a "left leaning gibberish" site.

In the article I posted, it made note that gun ownership in PA was lower than average -- according to the document you have provided, it was at about 54%+ as an average throughout Colonial America.

Both links make mention of the following ...

From the site I provided:

[3] Bellesiles’ book Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 2000), initially thought to be a landmark on gun culture in America, was widely discredited when it became clear that Bellesiles had fabricated statistics and information in order to fit his conclusions. Despite the unforgiveable and fraudulent activities committed by Bellesiles, the questions that were raised are still interesting and deserve serious academic attention—so long as accurate and authoritative numbers are used to support conclusions and they are reproducible.

From the link you provided:

In all, Bellesiles misclassified over 60% of the estates on these criteria that he thought important enough to mention. It is hard to see how Bellesiles could have counted so many wills that are not there. Bellesiles's mistakes go, not only to trivialities, but to the very heart of the matter-the frequency and condition of guns and the sorts of people who owned them.


12/28/2017, 4:47 pm Link to this post PM birdcharm Blog
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 3226
Karma: 4 (+14/-10)
Reply | Quote
Re: A yet seen Legal interpretation


Gun ownership if you read the article was as much a mystery until a owners death where the weapon was listed part of the estate. Many firearms did not make lists especially noted during Colonial days where the British did not want private ownership AT ALL.

Rifled barrels were available by smiths, they knew the reliability and the accuracy differences to smooth bore muskets.

Colonists could perform Guerilla style war from a distance as opposed to stand in line fighting of the typical day military. Militia style fighting, hide in plain sight.
12/28/2017, 8:08 pm Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 


Add a reply





You are not logged in (login)
Back To Top