JohnShe

I think the original topic is pretty much beat to death. There was nothing else to talk about.

bradpaul

Frank the subject of this thread is: FAA enrolls State, and local Law enforcement to curb UAS, and model aircraft?

A discussion concerning abuse of power by law enforcement is on topic.

It is undoubtedly controversial, but considering that the FAA is enlisting law enforcement to report on citizens flying toy aircraft it is very relevant to review just how government law enforcement has performed and the abuses that have happened.

Brad

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

if ya don't do nuthing wrong...ya won't get caught. Simple really.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

thinking back on both the ruby ridge incident, as well as the davidian fiasco, maybe we we are better off with the FAA relying on local LEOs to monitor and enforce things...

JohnShe

Ha, Ha! Isn't that how this whole thread started?

Sport_Pilot

There are well regulated back then meant to have a large number of militia, it did not mean what it means today. And having a private militia is not against the law. There are many with training grounds and storage buildings full of guns, and the Feds are not after them. However, many, especially those that are racis,t are being watched and when they have found to break the law the Feds go after them. In this case I think that it started when some Fed wanted to inspect their grounds and the Davidians refused, and someone in the government screwed up and went overboard.

JohnShe

The story is indeed complicated and full of confusion. So I can't say for certain what anyone was thinking, since I can't read minds. But the constitution is clear. It calls for a "Well Regulated Milita" and gives all citizens the right to join the militia. That has not changed. Private militias may or may not be against the law, I can't say, because I am not a lawyer. But, they are dangerous and unnecessary. I expect my government to look into all caches of weapons to be certain that they are not planning terror campaigns. Responsible citizens should be pleased to go along with this.

bradpaul

[h=3]US CODE Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


So militias are legal, however states can restrict what activities a militia may engage in.[/h]

JohnShe

Well, it definitely recognizes the National Guard as a national regulated militia of the united sates, so the Guard is legal. I don't think it legalizes unorganized militias as "legal", but, since I am not a lawyer, I can't be sure.

Sport_Pilot

Militia in english dictionary means any army raised from a civilian population to fight a regular army.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de...nglish/militia

The primary meaning for regulate is that there is control, not that it is ruled. As in the speed of a clock is regulated. Back in 1776 it also would mean to ensure that it is regulated to be a large militia. So if everybody has a gun, it is easy to raise a large militia.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de...chDictCode=all

You have to consider that the founders, at least in the beginning, faught the British with the guns from their homes. And they wanted that possibility for their decendants.

Sport_Pilot

The public should make Seatle politicians sleepless! In Seatle. By dumping their garbage into the Mayor's yard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washing..._Columbia_ADIZ

JohnShe

That is amusing reasoning and not at all correct. A well regulated militia, at the time, would have been fully under the command of the state governor. All militia members would have been issued their arms by the governor. There were and still are state and federal managed armories for this purpose. In time of declared war, the state militias would be mustered and assigned to federal government command. The citizens of the US were given the right, as stated in the second amendment, to bear arms against the nations enemies.

As far as using their own weapons early on in the revolt, that is correct. But, as the revolutionary army was organized and equipped, they were issued standard muskets that were provided by the continental congress.

Sport_Pilot

No, and it still isn't so. The milita is all able bodied men! Only the organized militia is under control. In fact many states did not have any organized militia at all for some time. But they did have a well regulated milita, in that they had measure to ensure sufficient militia.

Here are quotes of usage examples from the Oxford dictionary through the times.

Sport_Pilot

They were also given the right to rise up against the nation.

JohnShe

Wow! You are sadly misinformed.

JohnShe

We fought a war over that and the traitorous uprising was crushed.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

This has been done before...not very original guys... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDjC...CqjzbvJY#t=363

Sport_Pilot

Missinformed? Those are actual quotes from the Oxford dictionary. Presently a regulator can either be a government beurecrat, or a device to ensure that there is sufficient flow of gas or electricity. Back then it meant the latter.

But you know it is moot. SCOTUS said the meaning really doesn't matter because it only explains the necessity of the following. They said it is ok to ban certain weapons such as sawed off shotguns, hand granades, nuclear bombs and such, but the government cannot ban guns.

Sport_Pilot

That was whole states where the ruling class did not want to give up their privilaged life style. The large plantation owners were very well off. There have also been many smaller uprisings that failed Patton put down one in the 30's. But the American Revolution was started by low class citizens who did not like the tax's, then later the brutish way the British tried to control them. If they had lost they would have been hung as traitors. And many were. And we would be second class citizens bowing to the Queen and Govenor Obama.

JohnShe

Maybe, but the definitions are utterly irrelevant to the situation.

Here is an excellent explanation of what a "well regulated Militia" means.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/20...ly-did-it-mean

JohnShe

Wow! You are sadly misinformed.

The civil war was a rebellion of misinformed and misled merchants and farmers led by a landed aristocracy. It was an attempt o overthrow the lawful government of the united states. If you check closely, you will find that both the Northern and Southern armies were filled in with well regulated state militia units.

Sport_Pilot

Most of those misled people were fighting because the Yankee's were invading. That's all many knew. My ancestors did not join up till after there was an invasion in their home state. The American Revolution was a sucessful attempt to overthrow a lawfull British government.

Sport_Pilot

Well he is obviously wrong because he said this:

Well the Supreme court said that this was wrong and they should have the unfettered right to own and carry firearms. That is why many states and cities are getting rid of their gun bans and loosening up restrictions on concealed carry.

JohnShe

Ha! Ha! What invasion?

JohnShe

Right! With disastrous results. Count the number of mass murders, individual murders, suicides ... the list goes on.