Second Amendment Militia Certification?

Question

Do militiant liberals want US Government to issue Second Amendment Militia Certification for American based private security presently in Afghanistan and Iraq? If so, will such militia be the only Americans that Second Amendment would allow military value weapons? Could Liberals legally require US Government to order citizens who are not Certified Militia surrender all military value weapons? Federal Authority could suspend military value weapon sales, secure same ammunition stocks , deny repair facilities parts,
and Certified Militia could then be tasked to seek all Hostiles
that remain in violation of the Second Amendment. Profit
for militia would be percentage returned from assets that US Government can order frozen and siezed from violators. Will readers who own military value weapons surrender such if US Government and Certified Militia of Second Admendment so require? Will refusal to surrender then label same as Hostiles and subject to actions by Certified Militia?

Answer 1

The US government does not have juristiction in afganistan other than what the afgani government has given it. It certainly does not have law making juristiction to introduce such a thing.

The second amendment protects two things. The "right" of an individual to keep arms is the first. There are not many things a person can do appart from just owning an storing an firearm through this "right".
The second is the "right" to bear arms, which protects an individual so he or she may not be prevented from joining the militia.
The 1792 militia act required all male citizens aged 18-45 to keep and bear arms, though this was not implimented so seriously in many cases.
The US govt could make it an offence not to be in the militia, as long as militia service was reasonable, ie, not 53 weeks of the year. They could then prosecute people not in the militia and take arms away in that manner, though if the law implimented was seen as taking away the members of the militia or arms that could possibly be used as a check or balance against a future despotic ruler the law is unconstitutional.

The only way that the US govt can prevent an individual from keeping or bearing arms is if that person has broken the law and has had their ability to keep or bear arms taken away by due process. "shall not be infringed" has a lot of scope to it.

A famous 2nd amendment case was US v. Miller 1939 which spoke about whether a gun was usefel for militia service. So it is possible that guns which are not considered useful for militia service could be banned, but not guns which are useful for militia service.

Answer 2

I wouldnt give the government any gun I owned , registered or not registered, especially not the unregistered ones, they are getting to damned controlling to trust them anymore. Patriot Act, is also against churches being free from taxes, telling them how they can help people financially and also telling them they cannot preach about the second coming, etc............

bury your guns from sea to shining sea, ammo too.........the illegal immigrants have MANY weapons, and the ability to get MANY more......they arent registered, if the government cant hold them accountable, and do something , what right do they have to pick on true american citizens ?? NONE at all, they are a completely MALFUNCTIONING government for the people now. They are only for themselves, big business, foreign enemies, homosexual agendas, against minutement, malitia, christians, etc..........Who cares if refusal to surrender causes people to be labeled hostile.. they should be hostile after the last 6 years. We are all terrorists and in terrorists databases anyways, may as well let the government be, and they may as well LET THE PEOPLE BE !!

Answer 3

What ARE you talking about?

Are you talking about laws in this country or Afghanistan and/or Iraq?

By the way, "In violation of the second amendment" assumes facts
not proven. Our Constitutional forefathers had an idea of what an
"arm" was that has nothing to do with the high speed machine guns
available to day. It is well established Constitutional law that the
right to be arms is not absolute, or we would all have the right to
have nuclear weapons.

So the question becomes what is reasonable and appropriate.

Absolutists just come off looking like raving lunatics.

Answer 4

It would really take some imagination to think that the government prohibition against interfering with firearms ownership only applies to people the government has given permission to own firearms, but I do see that the Left is fully capable of this level of idiocy.

Once that happens, there is no limit to what the government might do next.

Answer 5

They might try, but I think there are enough people who don't want to be told they can't do something. That's why there are plenty of conservatives who want abortion. The bottom line is that if anyone tried to confiscate guns because those people were not in a militia, you can expect a civil war.

Answer 6

Two arms!!! Two arms!!! the British are coming!!!
there are all kinds of silly laws...but this one would cause blood shed (on both sides)...and the Federal Government knows this...this wont happen any time soon...