"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:09:05 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
Wrong. It makes no mention of them at all. It therefore defaults to the
states, or to the federal government, depending upon the time period
you're
talking about and the particular authority you mean.
Wrong again..have you forgotten the 10Th Amendment?
"powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States
or to the people."
Since the States were not mentioned as sole controllers of the
militias...nor was the Federal government, and both the States and the
Federals could draw on the militia...it would appear the militia is a
pool under no ones organization. It is is in the perview of the States
to pick officers, and to provide training, but thats pretty much it
until it is called to action.
Thank you, professor Gunner. g I'll just tell you what any law professor
or Constitutional authority will tell you: You're full of ****.
Find us some legal opinion to back that up, please. You may want to start
with Houston v. Moore (1820):
"The power of Congress over the militia 'being unlimited, except in the
two
particulars of officering and training them . . . it may be exercised to
any
extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress. . . . The power of the
state government to legislate on the same subjects, having existed prior
to
the formation of the Constitution, and not having been prohibited by that
instrument, it remains with the States, subordinate nevertheless to the
paramount law of the General Government . . .'''
{from FindLaw annotations of Article 1 of the Constitution, Clauses 15 and
16 (the Militia), quoting from "Houston."}
The Militia Act of 1795 also required that each State enroll every
person between the age of 18 and 45 in the militia and to provide
training and musters.
Under STATE control.
Since that has fallen by the wayside, it would
appear that the States have no interest in the militia per se, and
then the duty would fall back on the individuals as desired.
Keep your day job, Gunner. 8-)
The most current "legal opinion" as you requested circa 2001
"We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models
for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller, that
it protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a
member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to
privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol involved
here, that are suitable as personal, individual weapons and are not of the
general kind or type excluded by Miller." -- EMERSON V. US 2001 WL 1230757
(5TH CIR)
Get a day job Ed.
)
Ed Huntress