12-28-2020, 07:43 PM
Several of the links in the AM assn page are of questionable source/motive, dailykos, hartmann, snopes, wiki anything - all left-leaning and not exactly objective, original-constitutional thinking sites IMO. So be careful.
I wonder whether the 1903 Act is considered by the courts to be the implementing act of the 2A preamble...
I couldn't find much, again - objective- on either the well-regulated term or on the 1903 act. There is one printout of it (the law) I started to read through. It divides militia into Regulated (as in Natl Guard et al) and Reserve. I don't know if the 1903 act has been handled in court system, and afaik it hasn't been declared unconstitutional........... Regulated portion of militia can be supplied with rifle arms by the US, still owned by US, but handled by the militia's, not paid for by the state; they are on loan to the state. Just talking about what I saw in the text of the Act, not my opinion one way or the other, and there may be other factors in play via other laws or court decisions I don't know of.
So if you follow the logic of this 1903 act, the enforcement would start out via the National guard, called up by the President.
Here's a random thought: do we automatically assume that the phrase "keep and bear" necessarily implies ownership? Maybe it just allows for possession and carrying... regardless of who actually owns it... just wondering here.
More questions than answers.
I wonder whether the 1903 Act is considered by the courts to be the implementing act of the 2A preamble...
I couldn't find much, again - objective- on either the well-regulated term or on the 1903 act. There is one printout of it (the law) I started to read through. It divides militia into Regulated (as in Natl Guard et al) and Reserve. I don't know if the 1903 act has been handled in court system, and afaik it hasn't been declared unconstitutional........... Regulated portion of militia can be supplied with rifle arms by the US, still owned by US, but handled by the militia's, not paid for by the state; they are on loan to the state. Just talking about what I saw in the text of the Act, not my opinion one way or the other, and there may be other factors in play via other laws or court decisions I don't know of.
So if you follow the logic of this 1903 act, the enforcement would start out via the National guard, called up by the President.
Here's a random thought: do we automatically assume that the phrase "keep and bear" necessarily implies ownership? Maybe it just allows for possession and carrying... regardless of who actually owns it... just wondering here.
More questions than answers.
"Down the floor, out the door, Go Brandon Go!!!!!"