Constitutional Militias?

[GunnyFreedom]

Erm, this is getting way of topic, but since you're falsely accusing me again of something I'm not advocating, I am going to defend myself.

I've never advocated for a federal law enforcement. I've never advocated for federal laws restricting guns or drugs. Where have I said that? You seem to be confused. All I was doing was arguing that because state and local governments can Constitutionally (see the original understanding of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution pre Civil War), make a wide range of laws (like gun restriction and drug laws) that the feds shouldn't be able to make (like gun control laws and drug laws), there should be a governmental police force to do more than to "keep the peace" as you say, and there is no proof to suggest the founders disagreed with that assesment. A state and local police force, you know, like the ones that were in place before federal law enforcements? So I'm not sure what on earth you're talking about.

In the days of the early republic, the Americans knew that the Constitution was basically a check on the federal government. The Supreme Court case Barron v. Baltimore is a good example of this. States had a lot more free reign to pass whatever laws that tickled their fancy than they do today.

Also, I'm not sure why you think that state and local governments never make laws against guns or drugs unless they are forced to by the federal government. I can give you historical and contemporary examples of this. Please, brush up on your American history.

I have never seen anybody on these boards argue that it was unconstitutional for the citizens of Utah to form the kind of society they desire through the state prohibition of alcohol. Because the US Constitution does not address alcohol, this falls under "powers not delegated to the Federal Government shall be reserved to the States and the People respectively."

Strangely enough, Utah's dry state ordinances do not seem to have resulted in massive crime waves.

However, the US Constitution DOES outright state that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" which means this is not a reserved power, but a power specifically delegated to the Federal Gov't. Therefore, if there IS a federal police force, they should be directly responsible for enforcing the people's right to keep and bear arms AGAINST the state and local governments.

In other words, individual states do have the right to prohibit alcohol if they so choose, but states who attempt to restrict gun ownership violate the reserved powers of the US Constitution, and should be in danger of Federal enforcement as a result of violating those reserved powers.

I, unlike others here, DO see a place for a federal law enforcement body; but that body would be very different from the Justice Department we see today. The main responsibility of the FBI should be to enforce the US Constitution against whatever parties might violate it. In my little universe, the FBI would arrest and imprison the DC Mayor for violating their citizens Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms.

In a nutshell, the states CAN regulate/prohibit things like alcohol, drugs, abortion, etc. which are NOT delegated to the Fed under the Constitution, but CANNOT regulate/prohibit thinks like religion, speech, guns, militias, etc. which ARE delegated to the Fed under the Constitution.

 

[pcosmar]

familydog

I am trying to point out the intention rather than what has come to be expected.

Erm, this is getting way of topic, but since you're falsely accusing me again of something I'm not advocating, I am going to defend myself.

I was not accusing, nor meant as an attack. No need to be defensive.
I was pointing out that the Militia is the whole of the people, ARMED.

As far as the limits on Laws, the 10th amendment is clear.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The power to infringe on the Right to Keep and Bear arms is PROHIBITED TO THE STATES by the Constitution.
IT is a RIGHT.

Also, I'm not sure why you think that state and local governments never make laws against guns or drugs unless they are forced to by the federal government. I can give you historical and contemporary examples of this. Please, brush up on your American history.

There have been local laws on guns, and they have been overturned when taken to the supreme Court.
I am hopeful that the Court will rule that the 2nd is an Individual Right, in the Heller Case.
I do know that local Michigan laws have been overturned.
AS far as Drug laws go, I agree that it is in the local jurisdiction, However I would be interested in those laws that were in effect before the 1914 Harrison Tax Act or the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.
The only one I am aware of is a Utah law in 1915.

1915 Utah passed the first state anti-marijuana law. Mormons who had gone to Mexico in 1910 returned smoking marijuana. It was outlawed at a result of the Utah legislature enacting all Mormon religion prohibitions as criminal laws.

But as I said that is within State rights.
Since that time states that decriminalized or legalized substances are prosecuted federally.
There are ongoing cases in California.

My point was that Local law enforcement can be better handled by the local Sheriff, backed up by Local citizens. City Police would be under the local Sheriff, an elected official rather than a hired or appointed Chief.
As an Elected Official he would be answerable to the local people and could call on those same people for any assistance.
With less intrusive Laws and a Liberty oriented society, a large police force would not be necessary.

 

[familydog]

I have never seen anybody on these boards argue that it was unconstitutional for the citizens of Utah to form the kind of society they desire through the state prohibition of alcohol. Because the US Constitution does not address alcohol, this falls under "powers not delegated to the Federal Government shall be reserved to the States and the People respectively."

Strangely enough, Utah's dry state ordinances do not seem to have resulted in massive crime waves.

However, the US Constitution DOES outright state that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" which means this is not a reserved power, but a power specifically delegated to the Federal Gov't. Therefore, if there IS a federal police force, they should be directly responsible for enforcing the people's right to keep and bear arms AGAINST the state and local governments.

In other words, individual states do have the right to prohibit alcohol if they so choose, but states who attempt to restrict gun ownership violate the reserved powers of the US Constitution, and should be in danger of Federal enforcement as a result of violating those reserved powers.

I, unlike others here, DO see a place for a federal law enforcement body; but that body would be very different from the Justice Department we see today. The main responsibility of the FBI should be to enforce the US Constitution against whatever parties might violate it. In my little universe, the FBI would arrest and imprison the DC Mayor for violating their citizens Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms.

In a nutshell, the states CAN regulate/prohibit things like alcohol, drugs, abortion, etc. which are NOT delegated to the Fed under the Constitution, but CANNOT regulate/prohibit thinks like religion, speech, guns, militias, etc. which ARE delegated to the Fed under the Constitution.

It really lays in one's interpretation. I have suggested that through the original understanding of the Bill of Rights, the states could absolutely make gun control laws. I pointed to Barron v. Baltimore as the example. The Supreme Court decided that the Fifth Amendment and ultimately all others (that includes the 2nd) only applied to the Federal government. Thus, if a state wanted to put restrictions on guns, the federal government could not do anything about it. It was up to the people making up those states to change the law themselves if they thought it unfair. This is going by their understanding of the drafting process of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It wasn't until Republicans during and after the Civil War changed this interpretation and now we have this modern interpretation that the Bill of Rights applies to the states as well.

 

[familydog]

familydog

My point was that Local law enforcement can be better handled by the local Sheriff, backed up by Local citizens. City Police would be under the local Sheriff, an elected official rather than a hired or appointed Chief.
As an Elected Official he would be answerable to the local people and could call on those same people for any assistance.
With less intrusive Laws and a Liberty oriented society, a large police force would not be necessary.

Lol where have I disagreed with that?

 

[Allen72289]

Switzerland has a militia btw.

Look at their crime rate

 

[Doktor_Jeep]

On booze and gunz....

yes the founders thought that guns were more important that booze.

I do not know however if they every imagined there would be a ban on alchohol, even on a federal level. Dry towns may have existed then, and blue laws exist to this day as well.

Perhaps the founders did not foresee a society so weak that it could not handle liquor?