Bypassing all Federal gun laws

Last Friday I spent a few hours on the phone with lawyer friend Mike B.

Among our usual discussions for the sorry political state we are in he told me of an idea of his. “People think I’m crazy, but I think it would work.”, he said.

The idea is for the states to declare every state resident who can pass a background check to be a member of the state reserve militia and may keep and bear arms, as per U.S. v. Miller (1939) which:

…has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia…


Full auto, AP/incendiary/explosive/etc. ammo, suppressors, grenades, artillery, tanks, everything. Done!

That would appear to work. Assuming we could get it passed, do you see any problems with this approach? Other than, “Yeah, right. Do you think the feds care about little things like the constitution and SCOTUS decisions?”


27 thoughts on “Bypassing all Federal gun laws

  1. That assumes the Feds would respect such laws and regulations, which of course they do not. And isn’t the state militia already defined exactly as you said?

    • Yes sir. No need to appeal to their civil side any longer. Communist death cults don’t have one.

    • “And isn’t the state militia already defined exactly as you said?”

      Yes, but without the background check stipulation.

      We the people should be background checking those who serve in government positions. Not the other way around! Why is our thinking on this backwards? Turn it around!

  2. No need to pass a law. That’s pretty much what the 2A says. We just refuse to acknowledge it as such. And use the power it grants to us to preserve life. liberty, property, and civilization.
    The real problem I see is. Were in the middle of the, Might is Right phase. But our side hasn’t figured that out yet.
    Law is a crap pile the communist rooster climbed upon to crow. Law is for civilization. And those that understand it’s purpose in upholding civilization.
    And communist don’t get it. Their never going to understand it. It matters not why.
    Talking law to a communist is like explaining quantum physics to a cerebral monster. We should stop, lest we prove own insanity.
    Whatever happens is going to be lawful. Why? Because the WINNER is going to write the story. Period.

  3. Reservists and National Guard members are all disarmed by regulation when activated to federal service. Logically, this circumstance would extend to a given state’s Militia members. Unless a Constitutionally sound exception to organized military forces being subject to Federal service can also be devised, this idea just makes it easier to identify individual citizen possession of “arms” to law enforcement within and without the US.

    Consequence vs unintended consequence.

    • Most states already have a militia/state guard separate from the National Guard or Reserves. (In Ohio it’s called the Ohio Military Reserve. When I was in Texas it was called the Texas State Guard IIRC)

      The concept is that they would fill in and backstop the National Guard if the state’s NG units were Federalized and deployed.

      AFAIK they answer only to the Governor of their state and are not subject to Federalization.

      So how that would play out would be….interesting

      • What you explained is exactly why the 2A was wrote in the first place. As an a governing ,(regulating) factor on all the powers granted to government already.
        The constitution does not repeat itself. A power granted in one section of the document, need not be deprived to any other group in other sections. Is how the SOCOTUS ruled in the 1700’s.
        Therefor, All power to “regulate” the militia was already granted in the constitution. The power to call up and command, train, provision, appoint officers. Already done before 2A was passed.
        So the word “regulated”, has to take on another meaning than a grant of power to the government. They already had that power.
        So what other way could there possibly be of “regulating an army commanded by government?
        How ’bout, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.
        That’s right, we as armed citizens protecting ourselves are the “regulators” under 2A.
        Think the framers weren’t paranoid of government controlled armies, or militias? Even their own? Read 3A.
        And their reasoning is exactly why government has been trying to get around it for, like, ever.

      • Stroke of a pen, to coin a phrase.

        My point was that there is no mechanism from within the power structure to inhibit the power structure in any meaningful, long term way. Every act of consequence always has one or more unintended consequences included.

        I live in Texas and am familiar with the history of the State Militia (which is separate from the Texas Navy and the now defunct Texas Rangers). Most Governors shy away from the topic for a variety of political considerations. I think it a reasonable argument that state Legislatures essentially everywhere will actively oppose any legislative efforts along these lines.

        Want a reliable way to make yourself PNG at every level of governance? This example should do the trick.

  4. Washington State Constitution, Article 10.

    I’d like to note Section 5: “The militia shall, in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at musters and elections of officers, and in going to and returning from the same.”

    From this, I can infer that the state militia must exist, members of the militia must be allowed to muster, and that the officers of the militia must be elected by members of the militia themselves. Since the National Guard does not permit the election of its officers by the members of the Guard, it cannot be the state militia, nor can it be local police, nor the sheriff’s departments as they are elected by public vote.

    Oh, and I like the last phrase of Section 7, too: “No person or persons, having conscientious scruples against bearing arms, shall be compelled to do militia duty in time of peace: Provided, such person or persons shall pay an equivalent for such exemption.“. (My emphasis, italics in original.)

    • Watch the movie, “Drums along the Mohawk” (1939, with Henry Fonda). for the reasons behind sec. 7.
      In the movie the local preacher tells the congregation of the militia muster to a fight. And informs them any man not attending will be hanged.
      Kind of takes care of several problems at once don’t it?

  5. All a state need do is decide and declare that it will deploy any and all available personnel, resources and assets as required to defend any citizen or citizens against any and all federal encroachments upon any enumerated right (including 9th and 10th amendment rights).

    Far from being a declaration of secession, it would in effect be a declaration that the other states and the fed gov are, and have been, and remain in, active rebellion until they cease and desist from, and foreswear, the violation of or the encroachment upon basic rights.

    Our problem is (and I currently see it as insurmountable) that our brains have been trained to avoid thinking in any such way, and so these thing never occur to us, nor would they appear reasonable if proposed, and thus we are doomed to certain failure (meaning loss of liberty and, ultimately by consequence, life).

    I note that virtually all ostensibly “pro liberty” proposals fall under the category of the continued acceptance of the ruse (the false authority as claimed or insinuated by the offending powers). Either they contain background checks (in this case) or some other means of upholding the pretenses and/or presumptions and/or premises of the offending powers.

    Engaging, entreating and making deals with outlaws is the fundamental mistake, from which all the other problems flow and grow, and we simply cannot stop making that mistake. It is psychologically impossible for us now.

    And again and again; our loss of liberty is not about the perpetrators or their evil thoughts or evil deeds. It is and always has been about us, OUR beliefs, OUR state of mind, and OUR behavior, for we’ve known all along (or have no excuse for not knowing) that the criminal element is a constant and known quantity. It’s like living in a world that’s full of germs. That’s a constant. And so it is your immune system which determines your resistance to said germs. As we get weaker and weaker in our fundamental principles, and abandon our connections to our Creator, the “germs” of the world (the outlaws) begin to infect us, live off of our substance, and take over our systems. We reach such a pathetic state as we no longer have the means to resist. We can see that we’re dying, but we really don’t understand why, and we’re simply unwilling to consider the one possible solution. Thus is the state of the world.

    In short; Babylon is fallen, is fallen! Come out of her, lest you partake of her plagues!

    But no one understands what that might mean anymore. Why, for example, are there two utterances of “is fallen”? Anyone? It parallels the double appearence of the word “mene” in the proverbial “handwriting writing on the wall”. Anyone? And what in this modern and scientific era is “Babylon”?

    • You’re right Lyle that this wouldn’t be a declaration of secession, but it would be spun that way by all the politicians and their media servants.

  6. I think it’s a great idea. Just remember, we must all hang together or we shall surely hang separately.

  7. Or the local Sheriff could just deputize every gun owner in the county, thus activating the LE exception to all gun laws.

    • Same comment as before. Why would you expect the bad guys to pay any attention to the laws? They haven’t in the past, they won’t this time around either.

  8. Why should we give a damn about what laws or regulations they pass…if they don’t abide by them, why should we? Stealing an election is one thing, but trying to steal our rights…a completely different animal. Come and get it, Bitches!

  9. Absolutely Renov. They lost all claim of authority by stealing the election. They became “notwithstanding” at the mention of gun control.
    And at this point what is right or wrong, is whomever has the power to name it such.
    As Kyle Rittenhouse is finding out. Law and justice left this place long ago.

  10. Needs action as well as a law.

    States should also sell M-4 select-fire carbines to these unorganized militia as well. That will set the fox loose in the coop.

  11. Pingback: Quote of the day—MTHead | The View From North Central Idaho

  12. close, per the Constitution, the STATES have EXCLUSIVE authority to train the militia. Simply have the state pass a statute dictating that all militarily useful firearms are allowed to be owned and possessed by citizens of the state, for use in training the militia, and include both modern and obsolete arms in the statute

  13. We are NOT a ‘nation of laws’. We haven’t been for some time now.
    We are a nation of arbitrary rules applied as needed to serve the needs
    of those in power. Expecting the people IN POWER to obey ANY rules
    is foolhardy. The entire purpose behind ALL laws, especially those relating
    to the insanity of “gun control” is to expand and facilitate the power that
    those in office wield. We have LONG SINCE passed the point where we
    can address the problems and issues threatening our freedoms in a peaceful
    manner. We are now a LONG LONG WAY down the path to slavery. And there
    is NO peaceful, pleasant or easy way off of that path.

    • perhaps, but I would rather have the argument in court first, before I have the argument with rifles in the field. As Al Gore, of all people, once noted, there is no intermediate step between the Supreme Court and violent revolution. I would prefer to give the Supreme court every chance to solve the dispute short of violent revolution, no matter how significant my doubts they are up to the challenge

      • They’ve been talking about packing the Supreme Court. So far, there’s at least one Democratic Senator that will vote against that, but if they could put it through, they would use it to nullify the Constitution. _They_ would be the revolutionaries.

  14. So, Federal Law already says they are Militia:

    10USC 246
    (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 if your Female & in the Guard you’re Militia – if you’re male and 17-45, able bodied, a Citizen or declared intention to become a Citizen – You’re Militia.

    That’s the thing, they don’t honor the laws already on the books.

    • That definition doesn’t cover many people who need to exercise their right to keep and bear arms as much or more than those specifically covered. For example people 45 and over or those “less abled”.

      You are correct they don’t respect the laws on the books. Us, thinking the law matters to them, is the analog of the anti-gunners “Gun Free Zones”.

Comments are closed.