I want to take a few minutes to talk about the Second Amendment. I know some of you are groaning right now as I say this. That’s okay, you don’t have to continue reading if you don’t want the truth. For those of you who are still reading, ponder with me if you will…
Consider United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 in 1939. Jack Miller was arrested for carrying across state lines a Stevens shotgun that was sawed off to a barrel length of less than 18 inches. The weapon was not registered through the NFA (National Firearms Act), a precursor to the modern ATF and IRS. Miller challenged the NFA as an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment and was released pending trial so as to ensure that no Second Amendment right was prematurely trampled. The district court judge agreed with Miller and dismissed the case stating “The court is of the opinion that this section (of the NFA) is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., providing, ‘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.”
The U.S. Government did not accept this decision and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Miller didn’t live to hear the Supreme Court’s decision. He was found shot to death before decision was rendered. Nevertheless, decision was rendered. To come to the decision, first the U.S. Supreme Court had to determine interpretation of the Second Amendment. It was determined that the Amendment allowed for states to maintain a militia for defense and securing of the laws, to protect the state, it’s people, and interests, stating “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made.”
From there, an interpretation of militia had to be determined. Now many left-leaning individuals would like you to believe that this was determined with the Federal Militia Act of 1903. The Left and the like would have you believe that as of 1903 militia became, and only can be, the National Guard. This is wrong. The National Guard is just that… a “national” guard, not a state guard. If the National Guard were state militia, the federal government would have no jurisdiction over the Guard. Still, people such as Lt. Col. Robert Bateman would have you believe that the Second Amendment is only valid for those members of the National Guard, and that the rest of us are essentially second class citizens subject to only 9 amendments to the Constitution of the United States. You are not of the same caliber, and therefore not as trustworthy. He stated this on December 3, 2013 in the Esquire.com blogs along with a recommendation that you only be allowed blackpowder muskets and double-barrel breech-loading shotguns for hunting.
The U.S. Supreme Court, however, in 1939 interpreted militia as a force that was composed of “civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” It is to be a force that “comprise[s] all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” who, “when called for service … are expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common [military] use at the time.”
Now we come to the point I want to make, and I know that some of you now see where I’m going with this. Despite Miller’s death, his case sets a precedent that many have overlooked. Consider the words uttered by the U.S. Supreme Court:
“…appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common [military] use at the time.”
This tells us that a civilian young man, as a patriot of his state, is responsible not only for owning and keeping in good repair his own weapon, but to update his weapon as necessary to stay current. He is expected to own a weapon of the kind in common military use of the time. As muskets gave way to Henry repeating rifles during the civil war, a young patriot in the service of the militia of his state is expected to acquire for himself, at his own expense, the new modern weapon.
If these are truly the interpretations of the U.S. Supreme Court, why then is it illegal today for your M4 to be an automatic weapon, with three round burst? Why are outdated politicians like Dianne Feinstein attempting to outlaw 30 round magazines all over the country? I am a person physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense of my state, and should I be called upon to protect my people from an oppressive federal government bound on suppressing the rights of the people, I could respond as a patriot. So why then should the federal government restrict me from upholding my duty to keep myself armed with current modern firearms? How can we recognize any illegal law that restricts us from fulfilling our sovereign responsibility to the defense of our people and our states?