TexasCHLforum.com

So we now have the supreme court recognising the fact that the 2nd Ammendment recognizises a preexisting right to keep and bear arms within ones home for self defense, that is only half the purpose of the ammendment. It will take the next 100 - 200 years to realize all of the implications of this and we cant stop fighting now. Here is a brainstorm that I wanted to run past yall. Assuming the State of Texas retains a militia, seperate from the national or state guard, and separate from the "State" of the United States of America, but a larger group from which a subset would make up the national militia (obviously the federal government defines it's militia under 18 USC 13.311) my thinking is this:

The militia of the United States of America has a restirctive definition and service is compulsory. Say the governor, state legislature, or attorney general sets out a new definition for who comprises the state militia, with the new definition including everyone who is a WILLING male or female, over 18 years of age, and in good health. Require the militia to be "well organized" by requiring a criminal background check exactly like the CHL program, and pass a markmanship verification at least once every 5 years, demonstrating proficiency with a pistol and a rifle, and go through a basic training class along the lines of the chl program covering basic firearms safety. Require militia members to equip themselves (just like the original militia requirements) with one set of uniforms (old bdu's with name tapes, one set of surplus web gear, canteen etc.) a serviceable pistol (according to requirements such as minimum caliber, minimum magazine capacity etc) and a serviceable rifle (again minimum requirements but written to require at a minimum the current issue weapon of the US army the M4A1 or M16A2) acording to a set of requirements released by the AG or governors office. Remove the prohibition on open carry of a handgun for the militia.

I think this could solve a number of issues at once and be politically doable. First it would placate the open carry crowd and prevent them from giving all the politicians a bad taste in their mouth with their poor lobying tactics. Second and much much more importantly I think it could set the ground work for regaining our MG rights through the legal system while safeguarding the other half of the 2nd Ammendment which is to be able to keep and bear arms for the "security of a FREE state". It would be very easy with this to then apply for transfer of a post '86 M4A1 and get denied by the ATF and then appeal to the judicial system for the federal government infringing on your 2nd Ammendment right to keep and bear arms as a part of the well regulated state militia. It sets up a great case for strengthening our 2A rights in the judicial system, due to the fact that by state law, in order to serve in the well regulated militia of the State of Texas, you must posses a serviceable rifle that is in contemporary use by the nation's military (just like the framers of the constitution understood.) The state politicians get the political capital by passing the very conservative, constitutionally sound, legislation in support of the strong rights of the State of Texas, and they dont have the repercusions of pushing for "deadly assault rifles and machine guns" since they are currently outlawed under federal law (at least reasonably priced they are) and the program would be viewed as largely symbolic at first much like the Montana legislation for exempting locally made firearms from federal law. Seems like a win win for everyone in the state.

Thoughts?

Wow everyone is talkative today, no comments?

Texas has a state militia separate from the National Guard. The way that it is organized precludes armed assembly without orders from the governor. Any change to legislation would require the proverbial labors of Sisyphus.

Citizen militias pretty much died after the recent unpleasantness of the 1860s. I don't mean to be sarcastic. My great-grandparents were kids then, and never set foot in the U.S.

- Jim

No reason not to keep the prohibition on armed assembly except on order of the governor. Im thinking more along the lines of codifying the requirements to be in the militia which is then capable of being called by the governor. Why do you think clarifying these portions of the issue would meet with strong resistance? It certainly does nothing to increase the power of the governor.

A lot of things have pretty much died in recent years, doesn't make it right or legal.

The question isn't what's right. It is what is politically possible. Every major change to legislation takes years, a huge effort, and lots of money.

Widespread private ownership of automatic weapons is not politically possible. Our public servants <snort> do not want us to be armed equally to the police.

Would I like to own a select-fire M-16 for the defense of myself and the state? Sure (see my sig that I have been using for quite some time). Am I going to able to do so in the foreseeable future? No.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

- Jim

Wow well sounds like Vermont has not given up on the militia per another post in this forum.

I think that's a symbolic gesture, similar to requiring each householder to be armed, which a couple of towns have done.

That said, Vermont has a lot more respect for its citizens' right to keep and bear arms -- always has, regardless of who is running the show. The way that things are there is the way that things were in 1776 (except for the federal laws) and still ought to be everywhere.

During Reconstruction, the people who were running Texas wanted to disarm freed slaves and Confederate partisans who would not accept the situation. (See the history of what went on in the Piney Woods in that era.)

Now we see Texas police, mayors, city councils, and even state legislators who openly state that they do not want citizens to be armed. The only change is that they want this injustice applied to everyone.

I have been reading some of the debates from the constitutional conventions of the Revolutionary era. Many of the founders thought that writing the RKBA into law was unnecessary because the people would never allow themselves to be disarmed, and the federal and state governments would not dare to try.



- Jim

It seems militias have gone out of style, and ninjas have captured the public imagination. However, "Ninja Militia" just doesn't have the right ring to it. Ninja Brigades is more like it. Time to buy stock in Cold Steel.

And now, a recent intelligence report on a potential enemy:

Their low-tech, low-cost training includes throwing knives, firing poisonous darts and running up steep hills wearing backpacks filled with 60 pounds of rocks and sand, said Ha Tae-jun, a former South Korean commando who has debriefed captured members of the North's special forces. They are also drilled in street warfare, chemical attacks, night fighting, martial arts, car theft and using spoons and forks as weapons

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... =sec-world" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One problem is that the liberals and their media have changed the word "militia" to mean "domestic terrorist" to the ears of most of the sheeple. Rather than invoking images of the patriots* to whom we owe our freedom, they think of Timothy McVeigh.

* "Patriot" is probably next on their list as a word to describe violent anti-government nutjobs.

mgood wrote:One problem is that the liberals and their media have changed the word "militia" to mean "domestic terrorist" to the ears of most of the sheeple. Rather than invoking images of the patriots* to whom we owe our freedom, they think of Timothy McVeigh.

* "Patriot" is probably next on their list as a word to describe violent anti-government nutjobs.

Exactly what they've been doing, and where they're taking it. Sad state of affairs.

I believe I read somewhere that unless its a state or federal militia, its illegal. Might need to search google on that one.