Open Carry Group In Virginia Marches In Predominately Black Neighborood, Alarmed Residents Call Police
Over the weekend members of The Right To Bear Arms-Richmond unnerved residents by marching with long guns through Creighton Court, a predominantly African-American area. The police were called by neighbors witnessing the event and at least 6 officers responded.
The officers informed the group that long guns could not be carried loaded in the City of Richmond.
Officers asked one of the group’s members, Reggie Bowles, if his AR-15 “pistol” was loaded, Bowles, the black member of the group, disagreed with the officer that the weapon was a long gun and said was not subject to the law.
The officer told Bowles that it looked like a long gun and was subject to inspection.
Jason on the right flashing gang signs, yo
In the video, which was uploaded on Facebook, the officers are heard asking the group if they “could possibly understand why residents of the Creighton Court community would be concerned seeing men with long guns when police officers don’t even carry long guns in that community.”
Reggie’s “pistol”
“You walk around with guns like that and you should know that people could take it the wrong way.”
“We are getting calls about you guys,” the officer added.
Spitzer said he’s educating the public on their rights, saying he was exercising his First Amendment rights. The officer quickly corrected him, saying that he’s exercising his Second Amendment rights. Someone can be heard yelling out, “Second Amendment, you idiot, not the First!” to Spitzer.
Bowles, a 25-year-old stocker for PetSmart, recently added “III” to the end of his name on Facebook indicating that he considers himself a “Three Percenter”.
Recently, Bowles built what he describes as an AR-15 “pistol”, although that classification has been debated by other gun enthusiasts. Bowles claims it is not a long gun due to the absence of a hard stock.
In the City of Richmond a long gun cannot be openly carried while loaded. He claims that his AR-15 “pistol” can be carried loaded as it is not a rifle.
Creighton Court is a predominantly African American housing area.
This group of Open Carry activists was seen demonstrating with a pro-Confederate group of “flaggers” in Richmond earlier this summer.
Nothing says outreach to the black community like a Confederate flag. Previously, members of this group went to a protest in support of Ferguson and Michael Brown. The only problem is that they could not remember the slain teenager’s name. First they said, “Chris Brown” then when a man at the protest explained that was not his name, Spitzer said, “Well I know his last name is Ferguson.”
Their next “freedom” march is planned for October 4th.
To recap: This group is out to educate the public on: Michael Ferguson, First Amendment rights and the debatable legalities of an AR-15 “pistol.”
One of Reggie’s Facebook friends, Eric, writes:
I’m all for the right to carry, which I do daily as I was robbed and kidnapped back in 1998. I have a gun on me at all times, but I don’t feel the need to let everyone know. There is no reason to do that and all y’all are doing is looking like some thugs/militants. You need to understand that you’re going about it all the wrong way. If you want to educate, then get a few tables and signs and post up at the same location every week and let those wanting to be educated come to you. Don’t go in the hood where the police already have issues to deal with. They’re having to waste their time on y’all when they could be using their valuable time assisting with other things of much more importance.
Big thanks to my source whose anonymity will be respected here.
All photos were circulated on social media by the group, thereby making them fair use.
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Anomaly100
ChristCrusader September 23rd, 2014 at 19:33
It’s not illegal to carry a loaded long gun in Richmond (only transporting it loaded in a vehicle is prohibited), as long as it’s not loaded and equipped with a magazine that holds more than 20 rounds. That mag restriction when the gun’s loaded applies to handguns as well. The cops were ill-informed.
It matters how the ATF and VA law categorizes a rifle or pistol – so Bowles is right, and the cop and other anonymously cited “gun enthusiasts” are incorrect.
Another error shared between the ignorant, unprofessional responding officer and the author of the blathering trash above is that their exercising of their 2A rights in a fashion designed to educate and raise awareness is also a 1A exercise. One done with better effect and higher goals than the above ignorant mockery.
Carla Akins September 23rd, 2014 at 19:48
You left out: or designed by the manufacturer to accommodate a silencer or equipped with a folding stock or (b) shotgun with a magazine that will hold more than seven rounds of the longest ammunition for which it is chambered on or about his person on any public street….and we don’t know if any of the other limitations apply. The officer stated “it looked like a long gun and was subject to inspection” which seems like a completely reasonable request under the circumstances.
Yes, we realize the what the 1st amendment is and how it would apply here – but I’m betting he didn’t.
ChristCrusader September 24th, 2014 at 10:19
Perhaps you’ll want to go back and edit the hit piece’s mischaracterization of, “The officer quickly corrected him,…” to reflect your understanding then.
Carla Akins September 24th, 2014 at 11:11
I did not write the piece and would not have the ability to edit anything in the post. However you comment stands here.
Heidi Hanson September 23rd, 2014 at 21:14
Actually it IS against the law to parade with loaded weapons pretending to be an unorganized militia without having been called out by the governor. http://www.constitution.org/mil/law/table_state_militia_laws.pdf
ChristCrusader September 24th, 2014 at 10:15
did I say militia?
granpa.usthai September 24th, 2014 at 22:25
no, but the first part of the second amendment sure as hell does.
ChristCrusader September 25th, 2014 at 08:52
One need not be in the militia to enjoy the enumerated “right of the people to keep and bear arms…” uninfringed.
The beauty of the wording of the 2A is that in one sentence they succinctly established :
-The right to a militia
-That the militia had a right to be well regulated (not limited to a haphazard or untrained lot)
-That such a militia could be used in defense of the state
-That the state had a right to be secure and could defend its security
-That the people could keep arms uninfringed
-That the people could bear arms uninfringed
tiredoftea September 23rd, 2014 at 23:07
Well, thank you Perry Mason. BTW, they were not “exercising of their 2A rights” as they are not part of a state militia. You know, that pesky part of the 2nd Amendment that all the gun fetishists leave out.
ChristCrusader September 24th, 2014 at 10:14
The operative clause, and recognized by the SCOTUS, is “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
SK Rob September 24th, 2014 at 16:18
You’re not qualified to comment on matters of law. Get a new hobby. Go ‘save’ someone.
tiredoftea September 24th, 2014 at 18:58
Nope, not even close.
granpa.usthai September 24th, 2014 at 22:24
the WRITTEN INTENT is to provide the SECURITY of a free state through a WELL REGULATED militia.
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 19:01
Yes… it is…. and that well trained militia is supplied by an citizenry with an inalienable right to keep and bear arms.
OldLefty October 13th, 2014 at 19:12
And it’s the wackos who call themselves the militia that are the problem;
From Chap. ⅩⅩⅩⅢ.—An Act more effectually to provide
for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the
United States.
Approved,
May 8, 1792
“Militia
how to be arranged, and That
within one year after the passing of this act, the militia of the respective states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions and companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct; and each division, brigade and regiment, shall be numbered at the formation thereof; and a record
made of such numbers in the adjutant-general’s office in the state; and when in the field, or in service in the state, each division, brigade and regiment shall respectively take rank according to their numbers, reckoning the first or
lowest number highest in rank.
That if the same be convenient, each brigade shall consist of four regiments; each regiment of two battalions; each
battalion of five companies; each company of sixty-four privates.
by whom officered.
That the said militia shall be officered by the respective states, as follows: To each division, one major-general and two aids-de-camp, with the rank of major; to each brigade, one brigadier-general, with one brigade inspector, to serve also
as brigade-major, with the rank of a major; to each regiment, one lieutenant-colonel commandant; and to each battalion one major; to each company one captain, one lieutenant, one ensign, four sergeants, four corporals, one
drummer and one fifer or bugler. That there shall be a regimental staff, to
consist of one adjutant and one quartermaster, to rank as lieutenants; one paymaster; one surgeon, and one surgeon’s mate; one sergeant-major; one drum-major, and one
fife-major….
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 20:16
But this is not a discussion about private militias.
And, as you have just stated, the term “well regulated,” which means well trained and disciplined, applies to the organized militia.
The individual citizen is not affected by the “well regulated” clause.
There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that actually gives the federal government any power over privately owned arms.
That freedom is what we are seeking to regain.
OldLefty October 13th, 2014 at 20:27
What about freedom from the gun people?
There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that actually gives anyone freedom from regulation, either.
Chief Justice Warren Burger on the Second Amendment in
1991;
“The Second Amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest
pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special
interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” In a speech in
1992, Burger declared that “the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the
right to have firearms at all.” In his view, the purpose of the Second
Amendment was “to ensure that the ‘state armies’—’the militia’—would be
maintained for the defense of the state.”
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 21:08
You do not have a right to freedom from some people.
Burger stated this after he was off the court…so this is merely his opinion as an American citizen. He is also wrong.
OldLefty October 14th, 2014 at 06:44
You DO have the right to expect that YOUR and your children’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness trumps the right of any wacko to obtain any weapon he wants.
When Burger said it is irrelevant, and it is the opinion of a legal scholar, and he is 100% correct.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 09:16
The right to keep and bear arms does not trump or infringe upon any other rights.
The opinion of a legal scholar outside of a court is just that. His personal opinion with no evidence backing it up. However, all NINE SCOTUS judges, sitting in judgement, agreed that their is an individual right to keep and bear arms.
OldLefty October 14th, 2014 at 11:05
The right to keep and bear arms does not trump or infringe upon any other rights
__________
It does if the bearer open fires in a classroom.
But we are not talking about the right to keep and bear arms.
We are talking about the right to keep and bear ANY arms by ANYBODY without ANY regulation.
And Burger has the Constitution to back him up.
In United States v. Miller,
307 U.S. 174 (1939);
The Supreme Court read the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Militia
Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and concluded that “[i]n
the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a
[sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation
or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second
Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” 307
U.S. at 178. The Court concluded that the district court erred in holding
the National Firearms Act provisions unconstitutional.
Since United States v. Miller, most federal
court decisions considering the Second Amendment have interpreted it as
preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias.
Just because one believes that the 2nd amendment was meant for those in a well regulated militia does not mean they don’t believe that others should be disarmed… it means that the government can apply common sense regulations.
What unanimous decision are you talking about?
Even Scalia said, in Heller;
“Like most rights, the
Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever
purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the
Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and
the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive
places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 12:27
Actually, the only person talking about ANY arms at ANY time is you.
The protected arms are those in common lawful use, suitable for a militia. The dicta of Scalia spells out current limitations.
Keeping and bearing is not shooting. It is illegal to shoot up a classroom. THAT is not using the 2nd Amendment.
Every shot must be accounted for. You have no right to shoot.
“Since United States v. Miller, most federal
court decisions considering the Second Amendment have interpreted it as preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias.”
The ONLY thing that Miller did was decide that sawed off shotguns were not protected under the law because they were not suitable for a militia….AND because Miller was dead and the case was undefended.
Most federal court cases? There have been ZERO court cases until Heller interpreting the 2nd. There has been a lot of dicta supporting the individual right.
“Just because one believes that the 2nd amendment was meant for those in a well regulated militia does not mean they don’t believe that others should be disarmed… it means that the government can apply common sense regulations.”
If you believe that the 2nd amendment requires membership in an organized militia, then by default all other people MUST be disarmed. The goverment can apply laws and regulations to the militia.
Five of the Justices supported the “broad individual right.” The minority four supported the “narrow individual right.”
Under this theory, individuals have Second Amendment rights,
but only in connection with service in a well-regulated militia.
None stated that you have NO right to own a gun, no matter what.
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote an additional dissent, which was joined by the same four justices who participated in the Stevens dissent. Justice Breyer wrote, “I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent
and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (1) The Amendment protects an ‘individual’ right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred.”
http://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/Collective-Right.html
OldLefty October 14th, 2014 at 14:23
Most federal court cases? There have been ZERO court cases until Heller interpreting the 2nd. There has been a lot of dicta supporting the individual righ..
______
Miller was.
What IS suitable for a militia?
Why not sawed off shot guns?
“If you believe that the 2nd amendment requires membership in an organized militia, then by default all other people MUST be disarmed. The goverment can apply laws and regulations to the militia.”
____________
Not at all.
It simply does not guarantee that everybody has the right to everything.
Certainly, the fact that over time and currently, justices have disagreed, points only to the ambiguity of the amendment.
And no one says that NO ONE has ANY right to own ANY gun, no matter what.
But Breyer ALSO said, in Heller; The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.
The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves.
He goes on;
the majority’s view cannot be correct unless it can show that the District’s regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in Second Amendmentterms. This the majority cannot do.
In respect to the first independent reason, I agree with Justice Stevens, and I join his opinion. In this opinion I shall focus upon the second reason. I shall show that the District’s law is consistent with the Second Amendment even if that Amendment is interpreted as protecting a wholly separate interest in individual self-defense. That is so because the District’s regulation, which focuses upon the presence of handguns in high-crime urban areas, represents a permissible legislative response to a serious, indeed life-threatening, problem.
To the contrary, colonial history itself offers important examples of the kinds of gun regulation that citizens would then have thought compatible with the “right to keep and bear arms,” whether embodied in Federal or State Constitutions, or the background common law. And those examples include substantial regulation of firearms in urban areas, including regulations that imposed obstacles to the use of firearms for the protection of the home.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 15:04
SCOTUS in Miller directly stated that the case did not cover the 2nd, but only Miller’s use and possession of a sawed off shotgun.
What is suitable? Ah…that would be the arms most carried by a common infantry man. Read Heller for their reasoning as to how they developed their decision.
I agree…Why NOT sawed off shotguns. The value of Miller is that it declared that some weapons are protected. Better would have been if Miller had been dismissed.
Breyer used incorrect circular reasoning to justify his bias against the 2nd.
If DC can ban arms that are necessary for self defense because of a high crime problem and thus a need for self defense weapons….. then the Amendment is no protection at all.
If DC can ban the exercise of a right because of their arbitrary desires, then NO right is safe.
OldLefty October 14th, 2014 at 15:38
What is suitable? Ah…that would be the arms most carried by a common infantry man. Read Heller for their reasoning as to how they developed their decision.
_______
Miller;
These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
________
Should only THEY be armed?
The original militia was in place of a standing army.
No one has ever made the case that anyone who does not muster or train, (with the kind of militia that Washington used to put down the Whiskey Rebellion), and are ready to be called up, are NOT covered and therefore are subject to more regulation.
Breyer is not biased against the 2nd. I could claim that of the majority and their bias against the 2nd while favoring the gun lobby.
As for; “If DC can ban the exercise of a right because of their arbitrary desires, then NO right is safe.”
This is the circular argument.
The debate is whether or not the hand gun in DC IS a right, or whether or not the city has a right to control it.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 15:51
The original militia was in addition to our small standing army.
I’m not quite sure I follow this statement of yours.
“No one has ever made the case that anyone who does not muster or train, and are ready to be called up, are NOT covered and therefore are subject to more regulation.”
How is DC banning a right of self defense because of increased danger by criminals….. NOT a circular defense of their reasoning. THEY made up an arbitrary standard by which they infringed upon a civil liberty. There is no circular reasoning in my statement. It is an assertion.
The argument is settled. Individual ownership of arms is and has always been an individual right.
And He is biased. He would change the 2nd to read authorizing only those in the militia to be armed….leading to a ludicrous amendment that states a government body has the right to be armed….and that the government in charge of it cannot disarm it.
OldLefty October 14th, 2014 at 16:44
Many of the founders feared a standing army.
Thomas Jefferson James Madison and others to, isolate domestic politics from the standing army and its international commercial concerns by providing distinct military establishment, to protect and defend the homeland.
This was the state militias. Following ancient republican precedent and history, as well as radical Whig ideology, the core of this homeland militia would be citizen-soldiers, the successors to the Greek farmer-warrior. The militia would continue to be under the command and control of the respective states, but the Constitution also allowed Congress and the president limited authority to “federalize” the militia under certain circumstances.
There is also evidence that Madison agreed to the formation of militias at the insistence of the slave states who feared slave rebellions.
“How is DC banning a right of self defense because of increased danger by criminals….. NOT a circular defense of their reasoning”
The argument is that the hand guns contribute to the danger, not self defense.
You keep using the word “right” when that is what is disputed.
Those who do the bidding of the gun lobby, in spite of the constitutionality are the biased, activist judges.
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 19:00
You mean the part that actually is concerning a militia organized by Congress and is not a requirement to keep and bear arms? THAT amendment?
ChristCrusader September 23rd, 2014 at 19:33
It’s not illegal to carry a loaded long gun in Richmond (only transporting it loaded in a vehicle is prohibited), as long as it’s not loaded and equipped with a magazine that holds more than 20 rounds. That mag restriction when the gun’s loaded applies to handguns as well. The cops were ill-informed.
It matters how the ATF and VA law categorizes a rifle or pistol – so Bowles is right, and the cop and other anonymously cited “gun enthusiasts” are incorrect.
Another error shared between the ignorant, unprofessional responding officer and the author of the blathering trash above is that their exercising of their 2A rights in a fashion designed to educate and raise awareness is also a 1A exercise. One done with better effect and higher goals than the above ignorant mockery.
Carla Akins September 23rd, 2014 at 19:48
You left out: or designed by the manufacturer to accommodate a silencer or equipped with a folding stock or (b) shotgun with a magazine that will hold more than seven rounds of the longest ammunition for which it is chambered on or about his person on any public street….and we don’t know if any of the other limitations apply. The officer stated “it looked like a long gun and was subject to inspection” which seems like a completely reasonable request under the circumstances.
Yes, we realize the what the 1st amendment is and how it would apply here – but I’m betting he didn’t.
ChristCrusader September 24th, 2014 at 10:19
Perhaps you’ll want to go back and edit the hit piece’s mischaracterization of, “The officer quickly corrected him,…” to reflect your understanding then.
Carla Akins September 24th, 2014 at 11:11
I did not write the piece and would not have the ability to edit anything in the post. However you comment stands here.
Heidi Hanson September 23rd, 2014 at 21:14
Actually it IS against the law to parade with loaded weapons pretending to be an unorganized militia without having been called out by the governor. http://www.constitution.org/mil/law/table_state_militia_laws.pdf
ChristCrusader September 24th, 2014 at 10:15
did I say militia?
granpa.usthai September 24th, 2014 at 22:25
no, but the first part of the second amendment sure as hell does.
ChristCrusader September 25th, 2014 at 08:52
Amendment II
“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.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment
One need not be in the militia to enjoy the enumerated “right of the *people* to keep and bear arms…” uninfringed.
The beauty of the wording of the 2A is that in one sentence they succinctly established:
-The right to a militia
-That the militia had a right to be well regulated (not just a haphazard or untrained lot)
-That the state had the right to be and remain free
-That such a militia could be used in defense of the state
-That the state had a right to be secure and could defend its security with the militia
-That the people could keep arms uninfringed
-That the people could bear arms uninfringed
Any one of the freedoms enumerated are not limited by the other freedoms enumerated. They are expanded from their base enumeration through inclusion with their expounded associations; not constricted by being limited to any specifically enumerated benefits.
The people have the right to keep and bear arms uninfringed.
Furthermore they have the right to use that right to form into well regulated militias.
Furthermore, that well regulated militia can be used to defend the security of the free state
Each enumeration is an absolute right unto itself, and thereafter they’re cumulatively expanded to include certain other specific enumerations, rather than specifically limiting any of them to a specific purpose.
Regressive-liberals always flip the world upside down; what’s right is wrong, what’s wrong is right.
SCOTUS, p.1:
“1(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.”
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
tiredoftea September 23rd, 2014 at 23:07
Well, thank you Perry Mason. BTW, they were not “exercising of their 2A rights” as they are not part of a state militia. You know, that pesky part of the 2nd Amendment that all the gun fetishists leave out.
ChristCrusader September 24th, 2014 at 10:14
The operative clause, and recognized by the SCOTUS, is “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
SK Rob September 24th, 2014 at 16:18
You’re not qualified to comment on matters of law. Get a new hobby. Go ‘save’ someone.
tiredoftea September 24th, 2014 at 18:58
Nope, not even close.
granpa.usthai September 24th, 2014 at 22:24
the WRITTEN INTENT is to provide the SECURITY of a free state through a WELL REGULATED militia.
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 19:01
Yes… it is…. and that well trained militia is supplied by an citizenry with an inalienable right to keep and bear arms.
OldLefty October 13th, 2014 at 19:12
And it’s the wackos who call themselves the militia that are the problem;
From Chap. ⅩⅩⅩⅢ.—An Act more effectually to provide
for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the
United States.
Approved,
May 8, 1792
“Militia
how to be arranged, and That
within one year after the passing of this act, the militia of the respective states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions and companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct; and each division, brigade and regiment, shall be numbered at the formation thereof; and a record
made of such numbers in the adjutant-general’s office in the state; and when in the field, or in service in the state, each division, brigade and regiment shall respectively take rank according to their numbers, reckoning the first or
lowest number highest in rank.
That if the same be convenient, each brigade shall consist of four regiments; each regiment of two battalions; each
battalion of five companies; each company of sixty-four privates.
by whom officered.
That the said militia shall be officered by the respective states, as follows: To each division, one major-general and two aids-de-camp, with the rank of major; to each brigade, one brigadier-general, with one brigade inspector, to serve also
as brigade-major, with the rank of a major; to each regiment, one lieutenant-colonel commandant; and to each battalion one major; to each company one captain, one lieutenant, one ensign, four sergeants, four corporals, one
drummer and one fifer or bugler. That there shall be a regimental staff, to
consist of one adjutant and one quartermaster, to rank as lieutenants; one paymaster; one surgeon, and one surgeon’s mate; one sergeant-major; one drum-major, and one
fife-major….
THAT’S “well regulated”.
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 20:16
But this is not a discussion about private militias.
And, as you have just stated, the term “well regulated,” which means well trained and disciplined, applies to the organized militia.
The individual citizen is not affected by the “well regulated” clause.
There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that actually gives the federal government any power over privately owned arms.
That freedom is what we are seeking to regain.
OldLefty October 13th, 2014 at 20:27
What about freedom from the gun people?
There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that actually gives anyone freedom from regulation, either.
Chief Justice Warren Burger on the Second Amendment in
1991;
“The Second Amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest
pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special
interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” In a speech in
1992, Burger declared that “the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the
right to have firearms at all.” In his view, the purpose of the Second
Amendment was “to ensure that the ‘state armies’—’the militia’—would be
maintained for the defense of the state.”
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 21:08
You do not have a right to freedom from some people.
Burger stated this after he was off the court…so this is merely his opinion as an American citizen. He is also wrong.
OldLefty October 14th, 2014 at 06:44
You DO have the right to expect that YOUR and your children’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness trumps the right of any wacko to obtain any weapon he wants.
When Burger said it is irrelevant, and it is the opinion of a legal scholar, and he is 100% correct.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 09:16
The right to keep and bear arms does not trump or infringe upon any other rights.
The opinion of a legal scholar outside of a court is just that. His personal opinion with no evidence backing it up. However, all NINE SCOTUS judges, sitting in judgement, agreed that their is an individual right to keep and bear arms.
OldLefty October 14th, 2014 at 11:05
The right to keep and bear arms does not trump or infringe upon any other rights
__________
It does if the bearer open fires in a classroom.
But we are not talking about the right to keep and bear arms.
We are talking about the right to keep and bear ANY arms by ANYBODY without ANY regulation.
And Burger has the Constitution to back him up.
In United States v. Miller,
307 U.S. 174 (1939);
The Supreme Court read the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Militia
Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and concluded that “[i]n
the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a
[sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation
or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second
Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” 307
U.S. at 178. The Court concluded that the district court erred in holding
the National Firearms Act provisions unconstitutional.
Since United States v. Miller, most federal
court decisions considering the Second Amendment have interpreted it as
preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias.
Just because one believes that the 2nd amendment was meant for those in a well regulated militia does not mean they don’t believe that others should be disarmed… it means that the government can apply common sense regulations.
What unanimous decision are you talking about?
Even Scalia said, in Heller;
“Like most rights, the
Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever
purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the
Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and
the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive
places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 12:27
Actually, the only person talking about ANY arms at ANY time is you.
The protected arms are those in common lawful use, suitable for a militia. The dicta of Scalia spells out current limitations.
Keeping and bearing is not shooting. It is illegal to shoot up a classroom. THAT is not using the 2nd Amendment.
Every shot must be accounted for. You have no right to shoot.
“Since United States v. Miller, most federal
court decisions considering the Second Amendment have interpreted it as preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias.”
The ONLY thing that Miller did was decide that sawed off shotguns were not protected under the law because they were not suitable for a militia….AND because Miller was dead and the case was undefended.
Most federal court cases? There have been ZERO court cases until Heller interpreting the 2nd. There has been a lot of dicta supporting the individual right.
“Just because one believes that the 2nd amendment was meant for those in a well regulated militia does not mean they don’t believe that others should be disarmed… it means that the government can apply common sense regulations.”
If you believe that the 2nd amendment requires membership in an organized militia, then by default all other people MUST be disarmed. The goverment can apply laws and regulations to the militia.
Five of the Justices supported the “broad individual right.” The minority four supported the “narrow individual right.”
Under this theory, individuals have Second Amendment rights,
but only in connection with service in a well-regulated militia.
None stated that you have NO right to own a gun, no matter what.
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote an additional dissent, which was joined by the same four justices who participated in the Stevens dissent. Justice Breyer wrote, “I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent
and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (1) The Amendment protects an ‘individual’ right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred.”
http://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/Collective-Right.html
OldLefty October 14th, 2014 at 14:23
Most federal court cases? There have been ZERO court cases until Heller interpreting the 2nd. There has been a lot of dicta supporting the individual righ..
______
Miller was.
What IS suitable for a militia?
Why not sawed off shot guns?
“If you believe that the 2nd amendment requires membership in an organized militia, then by default all other people MUST be disarmed. The goverment can apply laws and regulations to the militia.”
____________
Not at all.
It simply does not guarantee that everybody has the right to everything.
Certainly, the fact that over time and currently, justices have disagreed, points only to the ambiguity of the amendment.
And no one says that NO ONE has ANY right to own ANY gun, no matter what.
But Breyer ALSO said, in Heller; The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.
The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves.
He goes on;
the majority’s view cannot be correct unless it can show that the District’s regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in Second Amendmentterms. This the majority cannot do.
In respect to the first independent reason, I agree with Justice Stevens, and I join his opinion. In this opinion I shall focus upon the second reason. I shall show that the District’s law is consistent with the Second Amendment even if that Amendment is interpreted as protecting a wholly separate interest in individual self-defense. That is so because the District’s regulation, which focuses upon the presence of handguns in high-crime urban areas, represents a permissible legislative response to a serious, indeed life-threatening, problem.
To the contrary, colonial history itself offers important examples of the kinds of gun regulation that citizens would then have thought compatible with the “right to keep and bear arms,” whether embodied in Federal or State Constitutions, or the background common law. And those examples include substantial regulation of firearms in urban areas, including regulations that imposed obstacles to the use of firearms for the protection of the home.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 15:04
SCOTUS in Miller directly stated that the case did not cover the 2nd, but only Miller’s use and possession of a sawed off shotgun.
What is suitable? Ah…that would be the arms most carried by a common infantry man. Read Heller for their reasoning as to how they developed their decision.
I agree…Why NOT sawed off shotguns. The value of Miller is that it declared that some weapons are protected. Better would have been if Miller had been dismissed.
Breyer used incorrect circular reasoning to justify his bias against the 2nd.
If DC can ban arms that are necessary for self defense because of a high crime problem and thus a need for self defense weapons….. then the Amendment is no protection at all.
If DC can ban the exercise of a right because of their arbitrary desires, then NO right is safe.
OldLefty October 14th, 2014 at 15:38
What is suitable? Ah…that would be the arms most carried by a common infantry man. Read Heller for their reasoning as to how they developed their decision.
_______
Miller;
These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
________
Should only THEY be armed?
The original militia was in place of a standing army.
No one has ever made the case that anyone who does not muster or train, (with the kind of militia that Washington used to put down the Whiskey Rebellion), and are ready to be called up, are NOT covered and therefore are subject to more regulation.
Breyer is not biased against the 2nd. I could claim that of the majority and their bias against the 2nd while favoring the gun lobby.
As for; “If DC can ban the exercise of a right because of their arbitrary desires, then NO right is safe.”
This is the circular argument.
The debate is whether or not the hand gun in DC IS a right, or whether or not the city has a right to control it.
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 15:51
The original militia was in addition to our small standing army.
I’m not quite sure I follow this statement of yours.
“No one has ever made the case that anyone who does not muster or train, and are ready to be called up, are NOT covered and therefore are subject to more regulation.”
How is DC banning a right of self defense because of increased danger by criminals….. NOT a circular defense of their reasoning. THEY made up an arbitrary standard by which they infringed upon a civil liberty. There is no circular reasoning in my statement. It is an assertion.
The argument is settled. Individual ownership of arms is and has always been an individual right.
And He is biased. He would change the 2nd to read authorizing only those in the militia to be armed….leading to a ludicrous amendment that states a government body has the right to be armed….and that the government in charge of it cannot disarm it.
OldLefty October 14th, 2014 at 16:44
Many of the founders feared a standing army.
Thomas Jefferson James Madison and others to, isolate domestic politics from the standing army and its international commercial concerns by providing distinct military establishment, to protect and defend the homeland.
This was the state militias. Following ancient republican precedent and history, as well as radical Whig ideology, the core of this homeland militia would be citizen-soldiers, the successors to the Greek farmer-warrior. The militia would continue to be under the command and control of the respective states, but the Constitution also allowed Congress and the president limited authority to “federalize” the militia under certain circumstances.
There is also evidence that Madison agreed to the formation of militias at the insistence of the slave states who feared slave rebellions.
“How is DC banning a right of self defense because of increased danger by criminals….. NOT a circular defense of their reasoning”
The argument is that the hand guns contribute to the danger, not self defense.
You keep using the word “right” when that is what is disputed.
Those who do the bidding of the gun lobby, in spite of the constitutionality are the biased, activist judges.
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 19:00
You mean the part that actually is concerning a militia organized by Congress and is not a requirement to keep and bear arms? THAT amendment?
reggie bowles September 23rd, 2014 at 19:46
okay I am reggie bowles read this entire article and it is 100 percent an accurate long gun can be loaded in va 18.2-287.4 with a chp or being law enforcement number 2 who somebody that was driving past made the statement of us exercising the First Amendment the officer was yelling at the person that was driving bynobody was wearing a body camerayour video is on my page any most disturbing part about this is the officer said that he does not care what the federal government describes my gun I he bases his opinion on perception
Anomaly 100 September 23rd, 2014 at 21:01
That is the longest sentence I’ve ever read. You said that all in one breath.
Reggie, are you a Three Percenter? Why do you stand with the Confederate flag knowing full well what it signifies? Do you feel used by these people or do you just feel a need to fit in?
Are long guns more important than your dignity? Do you as a father of a young child even care that some kids feel intimidated by the sight of gun toting gangs marching through their neighborhoods?
Do you care about anything – aside from long guns, that is. Anyone other than yourself? Do you care that members of your group didn’t even know Michael Brown’s name?
Kimberly B Stone September 24th, 2014 at 08:31
This guy’s a father?
SMDH.
Anomaly 100 September 25th, 2014 at 08:08
Yes, I think his child is only a few years old.
red-diaper-baby 1942 September 24th, 2014 at 08:44
I hadn’t realized it was a single sentence (if you can call it that), just that it was incoherent. Thanks for pointing that out!
But in a sense that kind of language was predictable, wasn’t it.
What these people were doing was disgusting, even compared to some of the other things going on around the country. That flag makes me shudder.
ChristCrusader September 24th, 2014 at 10:23
“some kids feel intimidated by the sight of gun toting gangs marching through their neighborhoods”
good opportunity to educate them about the Constitution and the incredible value of the 1st and 2nd Amendment rights.
Good opportunity to chip away at the state induced hoplophobia that intends to leave them defenseless to criminals and governments – foreign and domestic.
SK Rob September 24th, 2014 at 16:17
You’re not qualified to educate anyone else about the U.S. Constitution so give it a rest.
granpa.usthai September 24th, 2014 at 22:20
how about IDIOTS that can only recite half of a constitutional amendment? – mister unregulated militia boy?
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 18:59
Apparently you don’t understand it either.
A) he’s not in the militia
B) the well regulated term describes a well trained militia.
Have a nice day.
Anomaly 100 September 25th, 2014 at 08:07
You are not responsible for “educating” other people’s children. You either back off, or one day someone will make you back off from *their* children. It’s inevitable in a Stand Your Ground state.
mea_mark September 25th, 2014 at 09:29
Careful now Anomaly, you might make him feel like an oppressed minority if he can’t force his beliefs and interpretations on other peoples children.
Anomaly 100 September 25th, 2014 at 09:46
What’s wrong with these people? My brother is a gun owing Conservative, but if any of these people tried to ‘educate’ his daughter, he’d be all up in their faces.
ChristCrusader September 25th, 2014 at 09:36
I was incomplete in what I wrote. What I was thinking when I wrote that was that it’d be a great opportunity for their parents to educate their kids and explain the sight to them. It would have been better to have expressed that, as it was a presumption in my mind that I see was not apparent to a reader.
Bryan McLean September 29th, 2014 at 00:34
For me, it’s just a chance to explain to my kid why we need mental health reform and to stay away from the idiots with guns.
tiredoftea September 23rd, 2014 at 21:57
Reggie, you need help.
fancypants September 24th, 2014 at 05:37
its nut jobs like you who feel cc is not good enough ? somehow it feels better to carry a machine gun that could kill 20 people or more.
ChristCrusader September 24th, 2014 at 10:21
Don’t see where they’re advocating for long guns as better than handguns, or oc better than cc.
Don’t see a machine gun either.
Handguns couldn’t kill people too? A cc handgun?
Logic fail.
fancypants September 24th, 2014 at 12:28
show me a hand gun with a banana clip and I might agree on a logic fail
ChristCrusader September 24th, 2014 at 12:40
aside from the hi-cap handgun mags, ever hear of reloading?
http://youtu.be/9XqDaqvVvbk
Guest September 24th, 2014 at 12:41
trying to add pic
fancypants September 24th, 2014 at 12:47
LOL try and cc these weapons ? some people might ask…are you happy to see me or is that a gun.
on a lighter note it doesn’t surprise me in the least that bible thumpers are posting high volume magazine weapons to carry around. domestic doomsday warriors who could use a good shrink…seriously !
ChristCrusader September 24th, 2014 at 12:50
you’re either obtuse or dedicated to your troll profession.
You’re nonsense has been shot down. I’m done with you.
fancypants September 24th, 2014 at 12:58
good ! I don’t buy into your highly questionable religion (ChristCrusader ) and your post confirms it
SK Rob September 24th, 2014 at 16:16
You suck. end of story.
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 18:57
That AR Pistol
Did you miss that?
fancypants October 14th, 2014 at 20:25
try and holster the weapon ?
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 20:33
Still a pistol.
A bad choice for a pistol…but still a pistol.
Still no machine guns.
That said, I think they were dumb.
D. Tree September 24th, 2014 at 18:13
Do you understand the difference between the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law? It’s all loopholes to weapons fetishists… nothing honest about it.
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 18:56
The letter of the law is what is important as that is what they will charge you with.
D. Tree October 14th, 2014 at 15:08
In US Constitutional law that is not necessarily true. The intent of the law is considered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law#U.S._Constitutional_law
reggie bowles September 23rd, 2014 at 19:46
okay I am reggie bowles read this entire article and it is 100 percent an accurate long gun can be loaded in va 18.2-287.4 with a chp or being law enforcement number 2 who somebody that was driving past made the statement of us exercising the First Amendment the officer was yelling at the person that was driving bynobody was wearing a body camerayour video is on my page any most disturbing part about this is the officer said that he does not care what the federal government describes my gun I he bases his opinion on perception
Anomaly 100 September 23rd, 2014 at 21:01
That is the longest sentence I’ve ever read. You said that all in one breath.
Reggie, are you a Three Percenter? Why do you stand with the Confederate flag knowing full well what it signifies? Do you feel used by these people or do you just feel a need to fit in?
Are long guns more important than your dignity? Do you as a father of a young child even care that some kids feel intimidated by the sight of gun toting gangs marching through their neighborhoods?
Do you care about anything – aside from long guns, that is. Anyone other than yourself? Do you care that members of your group didn’t even know Michael Brown’s name?
Kimberly B Stone September 24th, 2014 at 08:31
This guy’s a father?
SMDH.
Anomaly 100 September 25th, 2014 at 08:08
Yes, I think his child is only a few years old.
red-diaper-baby 1942 September 24th, 2014 at 08:44
I hadn’t realized it was a single sentence (if you can call it that), just that it was incoherent. Thanks for pointing that out!
But in a sense that kind of language was predictable, wasn’t it.
What these people were doing was disgusting, even compared to some of the other things going on around the country. That flag makes me shudder.
ChristCrusader September 24th, 2014 at 10:23
“some kids feel intimidated by the sight of gun toting gangs marching through their neighborhoods”
good opportunity to educate them about the Constitution and the incredible value of the 1st and 2nd Amendment rights.
Good opportunity to chip away at the state induced hoplophobia that intends to leave them defenseless to criminals and governments – foreign and domestic.
SK Rob September 24th, 2014 at 16:17
You’re not qualified to educate anyone else about the U.S. Constitution so give it a rest.
granpa.usthai September 24th, 2014 at 22:20
how about IDIOTS that can only recite half of a constitutional amendment? – mister unregulated militia boy?
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 18:59
Apparently you don’t understand it either.
A) he’s not in the militia
B) the well regulated term describes a well trained militia.
Have a nice day.
Anomaly 100 September 25th, 2014 at 08:07
You are not responsible for “educating” other people’s children. You either back off, or one day someone will make you back off from *their* children. It’s inevitable in a Stand Your Ground state.
mea_mark September 25th, 2014 at 09:29
Careful now Anomaly, you might make him feel like an oppressed minority if he can’t force his beliefs and interpretations on other peoples children.
Anomaly 100 September 25th, 2014 at 09:46
What’s wrong with these people? My brother is a gun owing Conservative, but if any of these people tried to ‘educate’ his daughter, he’d be all up in their faces.
ChristCrusader September 25th, 2014 at 09:36
I was incomplete in what I wrote. What I was thinking when I wrote that was that it’d be a great opportunity for their parents to educate their kids and explain the sight to them. It would have been better to have expressed that, as it was a presumption in my mind that I see was not apparent to a reader.
Bryan McLean September 29th, 2014 at 00:34
For me, it’s just a chance to explain to my kid why we need mental health reform and to stay away from the idiots with guns.
tiredoftea September 23rd, 2014 at 21:57
Reggie, you need help.
fancypants September 24th, 2014 at 05:37
its nut jobs like you who feel cc is not good enough ? somehow it feels better to carry a machine gun that could kill 20 people or more.
ChristCrusader September 24th, 2014 at 10:21
Don’t see where they’re advocating for long guns as better than handguns, or oc better than cc.
Don’t see a machine gun either.
Handguns couldn’t kill people too? A cc handgun?
Logic fail.
fancypants September 24th, 2014 at 12:28
show me a hand gun with a banana clip and I might agree on a logic fail
ChristCrusader September 24th, 2014 at 12:40
aside from the hi-cap handgun mags, ever consider having multiple magazines to reload with?
http://youtu.be/9XqDaqvVvbk
Guest September 24th, 2014 at 12:41
trying to add pic
fancypants September 24th, 2014 at 12:47
LOL try and cc these weapons ? some people might ask…are you happy to see me or is that a gun.
on a lighter note it doesn’t surprise me in the least that bible thumpers are posting high volume magazine weapons to carry around. domestic doomsday warriors who could use a good shrink…seriously !
ChristCrusader September 24th, 2014 at 12:50
you’re either obtuse or dedicated to your troll profession.
You’re nonsense has been shot down. I’m done with you.
fancypants September 24th, 2014 at 12:58
good ! I don’t buy into your highly questionable religion (ChristCrusader ) and your post confirms it
SK Rob September 24th, 2014 at 16:16
You suck. end of story.
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 18:57
That AR Pistol
Did you miss that?
fancypants October 14th, 2014 at 20:25
try and holster the weapon ?
cargosquid October 14th, 2014 at 20:33
Still a pistol.
A bad choice for a pistol…but still a pistol.
Still no machine guns.
That said, I think they were dumb.
D. Tree September 24th, 2014 at 18:13
Do you understand the difference between the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law? It’s all loopholes to weapons fetishists… nothing honest about it.
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 18:56
The letter of the law is what is important as that is what they will charge you with.
D. Tree October 14th, 2014 at 15:08
In US Constitutional law that is not necessarily true. The intent of the law is considered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law#U.S._Constitutional_law
Heidi Hanson September 23rd, 2014 at 21:06
Most likely what these guys are doing is illegal. In most states it is illegal to parade as armed unorganized Militia with out having been called out by the State governor from the List of retired LEOs and military. http://www.constitution.org/mil/law/table_state_militia_laws.pdf
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 18:55
Most likely…they are legal.
They were not arrested. I live in Richmond. The only law they might have broken was the ammo limit on the rifles.
Heidi Hanson September 23rd, 2014 at 21:06
Most likely what these guys are doing is illegal. In most states it is illegal to parade as armed unorganized Militia with out having been called out by the State governor from the List of retired LEOs and military. http://www.constitution.org/mil/law/table_state_militia_laws.pdf
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 18:55
Most likely…they are legal.
They were not arrested. I live in Richmond. The only law they might have broken was the ammo limit on the rifles.
Heidi Hanson September 23rd, 2014 at 21:30
I don’t know about Virginia, but in Texas parading with firearms as a Militia is ILLEGAL. The Idiots don’t know it and the cops probably don’t know it either.
“Present statutes are encoded in Texas Government Code Chapter 431:
Subchapter A. General Provisions
431.001. Definitions
In this chapter:
(1) “Reserve militia” means the persons liable to serve, but not serving, in the state military forces.
(2) “State militia” means the state military forces and the reserve militia.
(3) “State military forces” means the Texas National Guard, the Texas State Guard, and any other active militia or military force organized under state law.
(4) “Texas National Guard” means the Texas Army National Guard and the Texas Air National Guard.
431.010. Organization Prohibited
(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a body of persons other than the regularly organized state military forces or the troops of the United States may not associate as a military company or organization or parade in public with firearms in a municipality of the state.
(b) With the consent of the governor, students in an educational institution at which military science is a prescribed part of the course of instruction and soldiers honorably discharged from the service of the United States may drill and parade with firearms in public.
(c) This section does not prevent a parade by the active militia of another state as provided by law
http://www.constitution.org/mil/ustx_law.htm
ChristCrusader September 24th, 2014 at 10:34
VA isn’t in TX, don’t know if you knew that.
And they aren’t a marching military and didn’t catch anything about militia ontheir walk out to exercise their 1A to educate people about their 2A
mea_mark September 24th, 2014 at 10:59
He didn’t say VA was in Texas.
Heidi Hanson September 26th, 2014 at 17:24
Walking through town with your friends with your firearms slung across you back is call parading. It is illegal in most states. It assumes that the group of armed people walking down the street is acting as a militia. check your states militia laws. Most of the states do not allow self appointed vigilantes to walk as a military organization through the streets.
ChristCrusader September 26th, 2014 at 21:34
Different than an education and awareness walk by lawfully carrying civilians.
Even if they are simultaneously members, as Virginia citizens, of an unorganized state militia.
Nor does one need to be eligible to be in the militia for the US2A and VA1:13 right to keep and bear to apply to them.
Nor have you demonstrated any VA prohibitions regarding “parading militia” anyway – even if you wanted to pretend for prohibition’s sake that that’s what they were doing.
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 18:55
Walking through town in Richmond, with slung firearms is called carry. Perfectly legal in Richmond as long as you follow the ammo limitations.
None of the people above were acting as militia or vigilantes.
Heidi Hanson September 26th, 2014 at 17:47
Here is some of the Virginia statue “CALL OUT
Va.Code § 44-80. Order in Which Classes of Militia Called into Service.
The National Guard, the Virginia State Defense Force, the naval militia and the unorganized militia or any part thereof may be ordered into service by
the Governor in such order as he determines.
Va.Code § 44-86. When Ordered out for Service.
The commander in chief may at any time, in order to execute the law, suppress riots or insurrections, or repel invasion, or aid in any form of disaster
wherein the lives or property of citizens are imperiled or may be imperiled, order out the National Guard and the inactive National Guard or any parts
thereof, or the whole or any part of the unorganized militia. When the militia of this Commonwealth, or a part thereof, is called forth under the
Constitution and laws of the United States, the Governor shall order out for service the National Guard, or such part thereof as may be necessary;
and he may likewise order out such a part of the unorganized militia as he may deem necessary. During the absence of organizations of the National
Guard in the service of the United States, their state designations shall not be given to new organizations.
You have better think about your acting as the Unorganized militia in Virginia. You might actually get yourself shipped off to Syria or Iraq. You want to play military, they might just grant your wish.
“Permanent faculty members of the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) are normally offered commissions in the naval or unorganized militia of Virginia. The Superintendent of VMI is normally a Lieutenant General of the unorganized Virginia militia unless he or she is a regular US military officer of higher rank. The corps of cadets also serves as cadet members of the unorganized militia. Staff members of the Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets also may hold officer appointments in the Virginia Militia, unless they hold higher rank as active or retired US military officers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_militia
Heidi Hanson September 23rd, 2014 at 21:30
I don’t know about Virginia, but in Texas parading with firearms as a Militia is ILLEGAL. The Idiots don’t know it and the cops probably don’t know it either.
“Present statutes are encoded in Texas Government Code Chapter 431:
Subchapter A. General Provisions
431.001. Definitions
In this chapter:
(1) “Reserve militia” means the persons liable to serve, but not serving, in the state military forces.
(2) “State militia” means the state military forces and the reserve militia.
(3) “State military forces” means the Texas National Guard, the Texas State Guard, and any other active militia or military force organized under state law.
(4) “Texas National Guard” means the Texas Army National Guard and the Texas Air National Guard.
431.010. Organization Prohibited
(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a body of persons other than the regularly organized state military forces or the troops of the United States may not associate as a military company or organization or parade in public with firearms in a municipality of the state.
(b) With the consent of the governor, students in an educational institution at which military science is a prescribed part of the course of instruction and soldiers honorably discharged from the service of the United States may drill and parade with firearms in public.
(c) This section does not prevent a parade by the active militia of another state as provided by law
http://www.constitution.org/mil/ustx_law.htm
ChristCrusader September 24th, 2014 at 10:34
VA isn’t in TX, don’t know if you knew that.
And they aren’t a marching military and I didn’t catch anything about militia on their walk out to exercise their 1A to educate people about their 2A.
mea_mark September 24th, 2014 at 10:59
He didn’t say VA was in Texas.
Heidi Hanson September 26th, 2014 at 17:24
Walking through town with your friends with your firearms slung across you back is call parading. It is illegal in most states. It assumes that the group of armed people walking down the street is acting as a militia. check your states militia laws. Most of the states do not allow self appointed vigilantes to walk as a military organization through the streets.
ChristCrusader September 26th, 2014 at 21:34
Different than an education and awareness walk by lawfully carrying civilians.
Even if they are simultaneously members, as Virginia citizens, of an unorganized state militia.
Nor does one need to be eligible to be in the militia for the US2A and VA1:13 right to keep and bear to apply to them.
Nor have you demonstrated any VA prohibitions regarding “parading militia” anyway – even if you wanted to pretend for prohibition’s sake that that’s what they were doing.
cargosquid October 13th, 2014 at 18:55
Walking through town in Richmond, with slung firearms is called carry. Perfectly legal in Richmond as long as you follow the ammo limitations.
None of the people above were acting as militia or vigilantes.
Heidi Hanson September 26th, 2014 at 17:47
Here is some of the Virginia statue “CALL OUT
Va.Code § 44-80. Order in Which Classes of Militia Called into Service.
The National Guard, the Virginia State Defense Force, the naval militia and the unorganized militia or any part thereof may be ordered into service by
the Governor in such order as he determines.
Va.Code § 44-86. When Ordered out for Service.
The commander in chief may at any time, in order to execute the law, suppress riots or insurrections, or repel invasion, or aid in any form of disaster
wherein the lives or property of citizens are imperiled or may be imperiled, order out the National Guard and the inactive National Guard or any parts
thereof, or the whole or any part of the unorganized militia. When the militia of this Commonwealth, or a part thereof, is called forth under the
Constitution and laws of the United States, the Governor shall order out for service the National Guard, or such part thereof as may be necessary;
and he may likewise order out such a part of the unorganized militia as he may deem necessary. During the absence of organizations of the National
Guard in the service of the United States, their state designations shall not be given to new organizations.
You have better think about your acting as the Unorganized militia in Virginia. You might actually get yourself shipped off to Syria or Iraq. You want to play military, they might just grant your wish.
“Permanent faculty members of the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) are normally offered commissions in the naval or unorganized militia of Virginia. The Superintendent of VMI is normally a Lieutenant General of the unorganized Virginia militia unless he or she is a regular US military officer of higher rank. The corps of cadets also serves as cadet members of the unorganized militia. Staff members of the Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets also may hold officer appointments in the Virginia Militia, unless they hold higher rank as active or retired US military officers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_militia
Kevin Burke September 23rd, 2014 at 22:03
I have made my last purchase at PetSmart, even though I love their stores.
1968_Camaro September 23rd, 2014 at 23:06
There’s a great alternative: Costco! They are a great store and they pay their workers very well. Also no open carry allowed
tiredoftea September 23rd, 2014 at 23:08
Good post!
Lyric Thompson September 24th, 2014 at 10:54
Check out Chewys.com. The prices are really much better then PetSmart and the delivery is really fast. I cut off PetSmart because they tend to jack us here in NYC. Put it this way, one product that I get for $5.00 at Chewys cost $15 .00 at my local Pet Smart.. I honestly don’t think I could love Chewys more then I do.. I got a pet fountain for my cat that broke after a month and they replaced it with no questions asked.. they really are easy to deal with. Like a business that actually appreciates its customers.. No I don’t work for them, I just love the prices and not having to carry 15 lbs of cat litter up a 3d floor walk up..
Kevin Burke September 23rd, 2014 at 22:03
I have made my last purchase at PetSmart, even though I love their stores.
1968_Camaro September 23rd, 2014 at 23:06
There’s a great alternative: Costco! They are a great store and they pay their workers very well. Also no open carry allowed
tiredoftea September 23rd, 2014 at 23:08
Good post!
Lyric Thompson September 24th, 2014 at 10:54
Check out Chewys.com. The prices are really much better then PetSmart and the delivery is really fast. I cut off PetSmart because they tend to jack us here in NYC. Put it this way, one product that I get for $5.00 at Chewys cost $15 .00 at my local Pet Smart.. I honestly don’t think I could love Chewys more then I do.. I got a pet fountain for my cat that broke after a month and they replaced it with no questions asked.. they really are easy to deal with. Like a business that actually appreciates its customers.. No I don’t work for them, I just love the prices and not having to carry 15 lbs of cat litter up a 3d floor walk up..
Rudewaitress September 23rd, 2014 at 22:59
Intimidation and fear. Old Nazi tactic.. people need to prepare for these punk ass britches and send them to hell.
Rudewaitress September 23rd, 2014 at 22:59
Intimidation and fear. Old Nazi tactic.. people need to prepare for these punk ass britches and send them to hell.
rg9rts September 24th, 2014 at 03:33
Loons
rg9rts September 24th, 2014 at 03:33
Loons
whatthe46 September 24th, 2014 at 04:03
speaking of black men and the death penalty, can you please post for discussion the case of Marvin Louise Guy.
whatthe46 September 24th, 2014 at 04:03
speaking of black men and the death penalty, can you please post for discussion the case of Marvin Louise Guy.
fancypants September 24th, 2014 at 04:34
Jason on the right flashing gang signs, yo
——————————
Back at ya.. jason
fancypants September 24th, 2014 at 04:34
Jason on the right flashing gang signs, yo
——————————
Back at ya.. jason
Donald Hobbs September 24th, 2014 at 06:41
It’s not a pistol, it’s a modified long-rifle. Nothing says insecurity like having to openly carry assault weapons in a peaceful town.
the_unorthodox September 24th, 2014 at 08:22
Might want to brush up on your ATF definitions
Donald Hobbs September 24th, 2014 at 06:41
It’s not a pistol, it’s a modified long-rifle. Nothing says insecurity like having to openly carry assault weapons in a peaceful town.
Chris September 24th, 2014 at 08:22
Might want to brush up on your ATF definitions