Concerning Guns, Unorganized Militia And The Second Amendment
BY Herschel Smith
11 years, 10 months ago
Switzerland has the world’s third-highest number of privately held guns per person, after the United States and Yemen, an outgrowth of its unique military culture. Service is mandatory for young men, though the national military is a little bit like a collection of local militias. That militia-tinged military culture blurs the line, just a bit, between an “on duty” time, when it’s normal to carry a gun, and “off-duty”; the result is that it’s not considered crazy, as it might be in the United States, for a service member to carry his or her assault rifle home.
[ … ]
Philip D. Jaffe, a forensic psychologist, said Switzerland’s military draft and annual weapons training have historically fostered national unity among the confederation’s cultural groups, which include French, German and Italian speakers. Even though the citizen militia may be outdated in modern military terms, he said in an interview in Lausanne, it has long fit in with the national image of small, self-reliant Switzerland maintaining its independence while being surrounded by much larger countries.
“They drill this into you; there’s something idealistic about it,” Jaffe said. “They hand you a big, bulky machine gun, and it’s yours. You get to keep it.”
This is all written from the perspective of someone who doesn’t believe in the unorganized militia in America. I wouldn’t consider it “crazy” at all for unorganized militia members (such as me) to own machine guns, and I don’t believe that the notion of a citizen-militia is outdated at all. I should be able to own the same kind of weaponry that I have to use my tax dollars to purchase our military forces.
Driving South for a few hours, the world view changes a great deal. South Carolina is currently considering protections for the unorganized militia (via Mike Vanderboegh).
Senate Bill 247 was introduced on January 16, 2013 by state Senators Tom Corbin, Tom Davis, Kevin Bryant, and Lee Bright and sources indicate that a companion measure will soon be offered in the South Carolina House of Representatives.
The bill reads:
(A) Pursuant to the provisions of Section 25-1-60, an able-bodied citizen of this State who is over seventeen years of age and can legally purchase a firearm is deemed a member of the South Carolina Unorganized Militia, unless he is already a member of the National Guard or the organized militia not in National Guard service …
(2) A militia member, at his own expense, shall have the right to possess and keep all arms that could be legally acquired or possessed by a South Carolina citizen as of December 31, 2012. This includes shouldered rifles and shotguns, handguns, clips, magazines, and all components.
(3) The unorganized militia may not fall under any law or regulation or jurisdiction of any person or entity outside of South Carolina.
This bill seems like obvious low hanging fruit. It should have an easy time being ushered through the legislature. But beware, it does in fact lend protections to the unorganized militia from the intrusive federal government. The totalitarians will be furious.
This kind of state law is a good and necessary thing only insofar as the state is willing to enforce it with the power of law enforcement and the unorganized militia themselves. As long as the state is willing to throw agents of the federal government in state penitentiary for enforcing intrusive federal laws, the state’s word means something. Otherwise, the state is just inviting scorn from both the federal government and its own citizens.
Federal laws concerning firearms are unconstitutional – every one of them, without exception. State laws are too if they infringe as prohibited in the Second Amendment. This South Carolina law places them squarely in the totalitarian line of fire coming out of Washington, D.C., and decidedly in the corner of the people. But being righteous doesn’t end the story. Totalitarians never decide to go away. They must be defeated.
|
|
On February 11, 2013 at 5:00 pm, S.C.C.M. said:
We here, in South Carolina, have a long heritage of resisting “Tyranny”.
Regardless where it may come from, it will be met with extreme Prejudice.
WE will stand “WITH” each other on the front lines, against ALL oppression.
Illegal laws, and those who wish to en-slave us….Regardless who it may be.
The militia is defensive by charter, but WE WILL finish what ever is started.
God Bless The Republic, Death To All Tyrants, We Shall Prevail !
On February 11, 2013 at 5:12 pm, S.C.C.M. said:
For those who’d like to contact the
South Carolina Christian Militia
e-mail SCCM@USA.com with contact info.
Palmetto Volunteers – S.C.C.M.
On February 11, 2013 at 5:18 pm, Pubius said:
The Swiss example keeps being brought up, for understandable reasons. But it’s not relevant to much of our situation here in the US.
Switzerland exists in the form it does because it serves a useful purpose in the European and global power scene. The place isn’t worth conquering for any reason — but it’s highly useful for all countries’ elites (political and commercial) to have a tight-lipped bank vault ready for use (and nearby in the case of Europe).
So everybody agrees to respect Swiss neutrality. Armed militia has squat to do with that, however.
I’m not knocking the capabilities of the Army of the Helvetian Conferation — I have two of their knives in my pocket right now — but in a serious military confrontation, they’d be overrun, admittedly after giving a good fight, including a nasty guerrilla phase.
But what keeps the Swiss free is their utility to the global power structure, and I’m not referring to chocolates, cheese, and cuckoo clocks.
My own view is that the 1934 NFA is too well-lodged in law to be challenged successfully today (though not forever). The 1968 law is also (short-term) untouchable. What we need to do right now is fight anything — most definitely including universal background checks — because they lead straight to registration. This is turn is the greased slope to confiscation.
Even if the government already has the pieces necessary to construct a register, the elements are fragmented among departments and bureaucratic inertia works in our favor. Think of this as grit in the gears — the more the better.
Above all, convince your senators/representatives to vote against expanding the current body of gun law. And be very blunt that you’re watching how they act in regard to your constitutional right and you will vote accordingly.
Write them, call them, every week.
On February 11, 2013 at 5:36 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Pubius. Yes. To all of the above.
SCCM. Yes, I was born and raised in S.C. I know. And I’m trying to goad Remington and other firearms manufacturers into moving to S.C., which would be a wonderful move and a win-win for all (S.C. residents and the company itself).
One thing S.C. residents need to work on, however, is the fact that my current home state (N.C.) allows open carry, while S.C. does not. This needs to change, as it does in Texas too.
On February 12, 2013 at 2:24 am, TeeJaw said:
Pubius: NFA 34 may not be the law that needs to be repealed, at least not the first one. It does not ban citizen ownership of full auto, it only requires clearance from local law enforcement and registration with ATF. It is 18 USC 922(o) that needs to be repealed, which was enacted in 1986 and outright bans citizen possession of any full auto not already registered as of the date of enactment, July, 1986. [ironically, it is part of the”Gun Owners Right to Travel Act,” also known as Volkner/McClure. Neal Knox said he had to agree to that as the price for the right to travel law. It was the ultimate pyrrhic victory and senseless giveaway because the right to travel with a gun aspect of the law is widely ignored by local police forces around the country.]
The result is you can buy a full auto that was already registered to someone before July, 1986 (if you can get local law enforcement approval) but it will cost you upwards of 10-15 or $20,000 because the supply is frozen in place.
A lot of gun enthusiasts seem to be unaware of 18 USC 922(o) for reasons I cannot understand. It’s there, and it’s real.
On February 12, 2013 at 2:33 am, TeeJaw said:
On what type of firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment, I believe the best interpretation is that citizens can own any firearm that a tyrannical government could use against them. That would make a machine gun ban unconstitutional, since governments at all levels own hundreds of those.
Piers Morgan loves to rhetorically ask his guests if they believe citizens have the right to own a tank. Yes, if police departments start buying tanks to use against citizens, then citizens should start retrofitting their garages to accommodate their own tank. If police start carrying bazookas and RPGs in the trunks of police cars, then…
On February 12, 2013 at 7:06 pm, Erik said:
@TeeJaw
Rest assured that we have a nice example in Libya’s revolution that we don’t need to worry about owning tanks. Once push comes to shove they’ll be available as will lovey homemade tanks. Once the metaphorical shit hits the metaphorical fan and things kick into high gear it’s almost assured that tanks, infantry vehicles, maybe even missiles will fall into the hands of freedom fighters if not just outright being handed to them/us.