Militia Act of 2013

[DThurston]

Folks - Here's an updated version of the proposal that the author put out through a CNN iReport post last Summer.

I have my own feelings and I've seen what some "pro-gun" ppl have had to say on Twitter about it.

Note that his Twitter handle is @JoshuaFlashman and he's very open to feedback from all, including criticisms/changes, etc.

Short version is re-writing gun control laws so that we have a far more organized, state-level militia that has regular training opportunities and few restrictions on what can be possessed and where. The trade off is that if you don't participate in the training, background checks, etc, you'd be limited in the type of arms and subject to location restrictions (ie GFZs).

So, check it out and talk amongst yourselves!

The Militia Act of 2013

 

[schwaky18]

Very interesting, well argued and well presented. I am receptive to the idea (in the pure dream since as this would never happen in real life). Feds would tread a little more careful knowing every states has basically a standing army that is well trained and armed to the teeth.

 

[dom1104]

Uhm......why?

 

[jgreiner]

Fascinating article. Thanks for posting it. And I tend to agree with much of it.

 

[2A_Tom]

I don't want to or need to read that drivle.

I HAVE the GOD GIVEN RIGHT and responsibility to protect my self, family and any innocents in my sphere of influence, be that in my home, curtilage, neighborhood, or at the store.

I will not stand idly by while I, my wife, my children or my neighbbor is attacked.

Whether it be a stern look, the use of physical force, or deadly force, I will stand with the weak against all aggressors.

The US Constitution affirms this right because governments established by men have no right to allow or disallow the unalienable rights which God Almighty has granted to all men.

 

[netsecurity]

Well it is true if there were a lengthy training period, the trainer could weed out the lunatics or careless gimps.

 

[dom1104]

I don't want to or need to read that drivle.

I HAVE the GOD GIVEN RIGHT and responsibility to protect my self, family and any innocents in my sphere of influence, be that in my home, curtilage, neighborhood, or at the store.

I will not stand idly by while I, my wife, my children or my neighbbor is attacked.

Whether it be a stern look, the use of physical force, or deadly force, I will stand with the weak against all aggressors.

The US Constitution affirms this right because governments established by men have no right to allow or disallow the unalienable rights which God Almighty has granted to all men.

Uh, thats great, but I dont get what that has to do with this thread.

At all.

 

[eldirector]

Um... why would I need to support this? It is blatantly unconstitutional, regardless of his wordsmithing. We already belong to the State's "militia" (except for the few minors on this forum), we don't need ID to exercise our rights, and we certainly are not required to be trained to exercise our rights.

Replace all of the firearms references with religious references, and see how far you get. Do we all need to become priests to go to church? Do we all need to become journalists or literary experts to speak out minds?

Better yet, tell someone they need to go through 200 hours of training and then 20 hours of training every year in order to vote. Sure, we all think that is a good idea, but it is blatantly unconstitutional.

Sorry Mr. Flashman, but this is a terrible idea.

 

[2A_Tom]

Uh, thats great, but I dont get what that has to do with this thread.

At all.

I have aged out of the Indiana Militia so, I shouldn't have guns?

I don't want to go back in the army. I did more than was required. You think that if you were in the melitia it would just be shooting al the time. Welli I do hope you enjoy wallowing in mud and sitting in a fox hole, shiveringv waiting for the giant heat in the sky to give you a little relief from the cold. Hope you like giv ing due respect to 21 yr old butter bar louies who don' t yet know their a** from their elbow. And 28 year old captains who think they do.

I will take all the free firearms training any one wants to provide so long as it is voluntary, especially if yuo also provide the ammo.

Um... why would I need to support this? It is blatantly unconstitutional, regardless of his wordsmithing. We already belong to the State's "militia" (except for the few minors on this forum), we don't need ID to exercise our rights, and we certainly are not required to be trained to exercise our rights.

Replace all of the firearms references with religious references, and see how far you get. Do we all need to become priests to go to church? Do we all need to become journalists or literary experts to speak out minds?

Better yet, tell someone they need to go through 200 hours of training and then 20 hours of training every year in order to vote. Sure, we all think that is a good idea, but it is blatantly unconstitutional.

Sorry Mr. Flashman, but this is a terrible idea.

^^^^THIS^^^^

 

[MTC]

Um... why would I need to support this? It is blatantly unconstitutional ...

... this is a terrible idea.

And that's an understatement. So much so it's hard to even know where to start. Just a few excerpts:

Every single person that currently has a license to carry, has a permit to own a gun, and every single person that owns a gun reports to their nearest police station or state police barracks /snip/

... gives the military instructors plenty of time to evaluate your level of responsibility, maturity, and mental fitness to carry a weapon.

If they think you shouldn’t have access to a semi or full auto weapon, they can request that you be looked into further, at which point a full psychological test will be administered and a judge will determine, based on the findings of the mental health professional, the testimony of the trainee’s military instructors, and the results of the psychological exam, whether or not you can continue militia training. You would have the right to an attorney for such a competency hearing.

That's very gracious of the would-be problem-solver to "allow" for an attorney, yet what crime has been committed that this "you" would have need for one?

Another grandiose scheme of licensing and registration under "military instructors", in which one could (presumably) be hauled in (he didn't specify how) for a psych eval or placed before a judge on some pretext.

A review of and reflection on the rest of the Bill of Rights is in order here.

 

[jgreiner]

I don't want to or need to read that drivle.

I HAVE the GOD GIVEN RIGHT and responsibility to protect my self, family and any innocents in my sphere of influence, be that in my home, curtilage, neighborhood, or at the store.

I will not stand idly by while I, my wife, my children or my neighbbor is attacked.

Whether it be a stern look, the use of physical force, or deadly force, I will stand with the weak against all aggressors.

The US Constitution affirms this right because governments established by men have no right to allow or disallow the unalienable rights which God Almighty has granted to all men.

I will take it a step further. you have an OBLIGATION as a US citizen, to fight any violation of your constitutional rights. Check out this article.

 

[boozoo]

... and we certainly are not required to be trained to exercise our rights.

It does start with 'well trained militia', does it not?

I think 200 hours is a bit crazy, but I do think there ought to be SOME training to own firearms (similar to a Texas CHL program). It's a huge responsibility and judging from all the accidents and idiocy, it's not one that a lot of people take as seriously as they should.

I would say most everyone on this forum is pretty serious about it - but the masses..... not so much.

 

[MTC]

It does start with 'well trained militia', does it not?

I think 200 hours is a bit crazy, but I do think there ought to be SOME training to own firearms (similar to a Texas CHL program). It's a huge responsibility and judging from all the accidents and idiocy, it's not one that a lot of people take as seriously as they should.

I would say most everyone on this forum is pretty serious about it - but the masses..... not so much.

This wasn't directed at me, but heard before in private conversations, so I have to ask (partially rhetorically):

1) Dictated, mandated, and administered by whom?

2) How would one go about verifying who did or did not have the (pre)requisite training?

3) And if by chance someone did not have -- or refused to comply with the prerequisite -- what then?

 

[HoughMade]

My friends, you've been drafted:

Indiana Constitution, Article 12, § 1

A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this State. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.

Ind. Code § 10-16-6-1 (2012).

Under Article 12, Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana, the militia consists of all persons who are at least eighteen (18) years of age except those persons who are exempted by the laws of the United States or of Indiana.

 

[MTC]

My friends, you've been drafted:

Indiana Constitution, Article 12, § 1





Ind. Code § 10-16-6-1 (2012).

And that's fine.
Enjoyed your posts here so far. Will you comment on any differences between these or any other provisions of the Indiana Constitution and those proposed in the OP article?

 

[Jarhead77]

Nothing to see here. Move along.

 

[HoughMade]

And that's fine.
Enjoyed your posts here so far. Will you comment on any differences between these or any other provisions of the Indiana Constitution and those proposed in the OP article?

I have always been in favor of mandatory military service and a system similar to the Swiss or Israeli system, I would have no problem with. As long as there is a provision for religious objections, I don't see why it would not be Constitutional.

 

[MTC]

I have always been in favor of mandatory military service and a system similar to the Swiss or Israeli system, I would have no problem with. As long as there is a provision for religious objections, I don't see why it would not be Constitutional.

Thank you for sharing your views. Have you any comments on the constitutionality -- or any other aspect -- of the proposals/mandates put forth in the OP article?

 

[silverspoon]

Um... why would I need to support this? It is blatantly unconstitutional, regardless of his wordsmithing. We already belong to the State's "militia" (except for the few minors on this forum), we don't need ID to exercise our rights, and we certainly are not required to be trained to exercise our rights.

Replace all of the firearms references with religious references, and see how far you get. Do we all need to become priests to go to church? Do we all need to become journalists or literary experts to speak out minds?

Better yet, tell someone they need to go through 200 hours of training and then 20 hours of training every year in order to vote. Sure, we all think that is a good idea, but it is blatantly unconstitutional.

Sorry Mr. Flashman, but this is a terrible idea.

^^ This.

Repped.

 

[MightySanta]

This is unconstitutional period. There's nothing to "debate" here.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials."
George Mason