tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post7749473364768873471..comments2024-03-28T03:14:51.294-05:00Comments on Dad29: NRA's Wrong on ReciprocityDad29http://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-18362631325366328532011-11-19T09:58:29.101-06:002011-11-19T09:58:29.101-06:00Congress doesn't have to call up the militia i...Congress doesn't have to call up the militia into actual Federal service to make use of that clause; it has the power to arm and organize them even while they are not. (That's why the next words in that section speak to what happens when the militia is called into Federal service.) <br /><br />For now, the militia does have a legal definition: see <a href="http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt" rel="nofollow">Title 10, section 311</a>.<br /><br />You might object to the age 45 cutoff, but almost all men from 17 to 45 would be covered under current law. Nor is there any reason that Congress couldn't expand the definition to "all citizens between the ages of 18 and 88."Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-73336448198838678402011-11-19T09:25:15.164-06:002011-11-19T09:25:15.164-06:00Including the 2A was the Fathers' gravest mist...Including the 2A was the Fathers' gravest mistake.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-66489153833206288482011-11-19T07:17:09.375-06:002011-11-19T07:17:09.375-06:00Umnnhhhh...if Congress wishes that the militia tra...Umnnhhhh...if Congress wishes that the militia travel, armed and unimpeded, Congress can activate the militia.<br /><br />By the way, the bill (above) was one of two proposals. This one was based on the 14th Amendment's rights; the other was based on the 2A.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-77974006323698244812011-11-18T19:22:02.105-06:002011-11-18T19:22:02.105-06:00Well, yes and no. For a long time there was a deb...Well, yes and no. For a long time there was a debate about whether the second protected a state militia power only, or an individual right. The fact is that it seems to do both; the reference to the militia means something, after all, even though it is clearly the dependent clause.<br /><br />However, Congress is specifically delegated the authority to regulate the militia in Art. I. Sect. 8 ("to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia...). <br /><br />So, while the 2nd strips Congress of any authority to <i>infringe</i> the keeping and bearing of arms, Congress would seem to have authority to <i>require</i> it -- or to establish rules that would permit the carrying of arms across state borders, provided that the arms were to be used for militia purposes (such as upholding the common peace and lawful order).Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.com