Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on July 18, 2017, 02:36:39 PM
-
The Militia Training and Supply Act of 2017.
First, the less exciting part:
This state-level bill would exempt various rifle and pistol calibers from sales taxes, depending on their suitability for use in common self-defense and militia-oriented weaponry. Examples would include 5.56 NATO, .223 Remington, .38 Special, 45 Auto, and 9mm (among many others). Whereas these calibers are those most commonly used by the militia (the people) in defense of their communities, and to train for such purposes, they are exempt from sales tax.
Then, the fun part:
The bill would also exempt any firearm or firearm accessory that, in any state, is subject to special taxation, regulation or prohibition as an "assault weapon," a "machine gun," an "identifying feature" of such class of weaponry, or as a "high-capacity" device.
Call your hypothetical (or actual) assemblyman, and demand he sign on as a sponsor!
-
Aside from possibly the old Velodog rounds, what caliber isn't suitable for self defense?
-
Aside from possibly the old Velodog rounds, what caliber isn't suitable for self defense?
Shhh... Don't give away the game too early.
-
I don't know if I worded my fake bill correctly, but the intent of the second part is that, whatever is frowned upon in any state is tax-exempt in states that pass the bill.
-
Don't many states prohibit "para-military" training? Some with that prohibition have an exception of some kind for militia (IIRC), but I believe many do not. You might need to do some research before you use the 'M' word.
-
If the "M" word is involved, I'm headed the other way!
-
The Fun Stuff Training and Supply Act?
-
If the "M" word is involved, I'm headed the other way!
What do you have against moms? [tinfoil]
The Militia is defined by the Militia Act of 1790.....I believe that has been subsumed into the U. S. Codes but I can't remember which.
-
There is the Organized Militia and the Unorganized Militia. Most everyone is in the Unorganized Militia. An Organized Militia is a whole `nuther animal. The Organized Militia is thought to be under State or Federal control and they consider anyone creating an Organized Militia to be a threat to the State/Fed.
-
What does the US Code actually say about "the militia"? Functionally, there are only three laws on the books that deal specifically with "the militia". Title 10 USC, Chapter 13, Sec. 312 defines who is exempt from serving in the militia; Section 313 of Title 32 extends the term of service in the militia to honorably discharged members of the Active Duty Armed Forces to the age of 65. It is only in Title 10 USC, Chapter 13, Sec. 311 that the militia is specifically defined:
Title 10 USC Ch. 13 Sec. 311
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
Sec. 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.
SOURCE
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85-861, Sec. 1(7),
Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103-160, div. A, title V,
Sec. 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)
Now, read the above cite carefully. You will note that it splits the Militia into two parts, the "organized" militia, and the "unorganized" milita. The "organized militia" is also known as the "National Guard".
So, why is this written in so cumbersome a manner? Anti's love to try and cite only part of this, claiming that the National Guard - and ONLY the National Guard - is the militia. It is not. Why?
The Draft. That's why.
When the Draft is put into effect -- and it was proposed for reinstatement as recently as GWB's first term, by a certain New York City Democrat -- it is termed "Selective Service". Most people assume this to refer to the drawing of people's names by a draft board ("Your number is up!"); in fact, it is the "selective" activation of the "unorganized militia", as individuals, for military service. The catch is that there is no more - or less - that the Government can add to this, without raising "uncomfortable" ideas.
Clearly, then, Congress has failed to provide effective regulation to the Militia...and, in the resulting "Catch-22", that leaves all other aspects of the militia that Congress does not cover -- arming, equipping, training, stocking of supplies, etc. -- to the individual members of the Militia...
...That's right, kids: personal responsibility, here. As a Citizen, you are only obligated to do two things: Fill out the Census form, and bear arms in defense of the nation.
The fact that so many people will argue strenuously that they do not have to do either is one of the fundamental problems in the United States, at this writing.
Congress -- with the active collusion of the Media -- has blinded most of the neutral center to this fact through the simple mechanism of ignoring it: if they don't talk about it - ever - people will eventually forget about it.
And they //desperately// want you to forget about it, for two reasons:
1. Since they want more power and control over you, they cannot promote the notion of "personal responsibility"...until you are on trial for violating any of a truly Byzantine array of mutually-contradictory laws, of course. Then, it is ALL about "personal responsibility".
2. If you, the Citizen, start assuming personal responsibility for messy, dangerous things like military service -- we //are// talking about the Militia, remember: militia --> military -- you just might start reading (and worse, believing) the words of all those "dead, White, European males", to wit, that it is YOUR DUTY to remove the Government by force, in the event that it becomes necessary.
Nervous, yet?
Good.
But still, the Anti's are relentless. Their response to this, beyond telling you that you are "crazy" for even //thinking// such a thing, is to suggest that the "arms" of the militia should be kept in locked armories rather than in the personal possession of the individuals that make up the militia; that there is in effect no "individual mandate" to the "bearing of arms", flying in the face of historical records from around the world.
Right there, that should tell you who these people are, because the modern notion of "collectivism" is a hallmark of something demonstrably different than what the Constitution is talking about.
But I digress.
The next line of attack runs along the line of "What's the point? No redneck, citizen militia can resist an army!" -- I'm sure that the peoples of Haiti, the Philippines, Cuba, Nicaragua, Romania, Croatia, Slovenia, and a host of other countries (including the people of Syria) agree with that...I'm sure that both Lenin and Trotsky would nod sagely, as well...Not to say it wouldn't be bloody -- but then, Anti's seem to perceive life to be a video game world set to "South Korean Level".
The final Anti argument about militias (remember, we're not talking about personal safety or hunting, anymore), when all else fails, is what I call the "nuclear option":
"You are CRAZY!!! What? Do you seriously want everyone to have a NUCLEAR BOMB?!?!?!"
...As if that lends legitimacy to their argument.
In fact, the SCOTUS rides to the rescue, yet again...albeit in a 'Keystone Kops' kind of way.
'Miller vs United States, 1939', is often cited by Anti's as some kind of bizarre justification for...something. I'm not entirely sure what.
The case in question concerned a man whose sawed-off shotgun was confiscated under the "National Firearms Act of 1934", for failure to pay a transfer tax on the weapon, as it had traveled across state lines, and was thus subject to the tax, even though it wasn't for sale.
(And for the Anti's still reading this, consider: NFA'34 did not "ban" automatic weapons -- it only limited legal access to them to those wealthy enough to pay the tax.)
In any case, when the weapon was seized for non-payment of taxes, Miller sued, claiming that the seizure of a weapon covered by the tax violated his rights under the 2nd Amendment. The lower court held in his favor. The government appealed, and the SCOTUS heard the case.
The SCOTUS overturned the lower court's decision, citing that a firearm was only protected under the 2nd Amendment if it had "...some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia..."
Now, aside from the fact that anyone who can honestly not see a "military utility" in a sawed-off shotgun should not be ruling on a law concerning military-pattern weapons, the Court also made reference to a very interesting idea:
"...Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense..."
Note the term 'ordinary military equipment'. To someone not familiar with the military - and to be honest, even to someone who //is// familiar with the military - this is an odd phrase. However, 'ordinary military equipment' means something very specific: the weapons and equipment normally carried into combat and operated by one person.
Why is this significant?
Because it includes, and therefore extends the protection of the Second Amendment to, any weapon that 'contributes to the common defense' that can be carried //and// operated by one person.
So what?
So -- that means that it protects ALL fully-automatic, 'military-pattern' rifles, such as AK-47's and M-16's, not simply their "civilian-legal" clones...but it also protects things like hand grenades, grenade launchers like the M203, light anti-tank rockets such as the M72 LAWS and the RPG7-series, landmines and demolition charges.
Significantly, it does NOT protect weapons like M-60 or M2 .50 machine guns, mortars, artillery, tanks...or nuclear weapons...
...But again - so what? Take another look at 'Barron v. Baltimore':
The Constitution, except where specifically noted, only applies to the Federal Government. This means that the Federal Government -- neither Congress, the President, the SCOTUS, nor the various agencies that answer to them -- can legally enact any legislation or regulation which eliminates the rights enumerated in the Amendments, including the Bill of Rights, without an actual Congressional Amendment being duly passed allowing them to do so. See the Eighteenth and Twenty-First Amendments...
...Which means, of course, that every single Federal gun control law restricting access to arms that "...could contribute to the common defense...", which are part of the "...ordinary military equipment..." -- whether literally, as with the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban", or obliquely, as with NFA'34, which specifically intended to place certain types of weapons beyond the reach of the 'common man' -- is illegal.
And there is no legal obligation to obey an illegal law -- only practical ones.
(author unknown)
-
The above was preceded by:
Going forward, the following principles will be adhered to by me when commenting on this subject:
1. The ownership and bearing of arms in the United States is not, and never has been, about punching paper targets, shooting Bambi and Thumper...nor about self-defense against the criminal element. (See #'s 4 & 5, below)
2. "Gun control" kills people. I will no longer cite links in defense of this view (I will, however, post informational links from time to time -- it's the emphasis, rather than the act).
3. If you support "gun control" you support, whether actively and knowingly or through your own utter incompetence, [you also support] ALL of the following:
* Murder
* Genocide
* Rape
* Robbery
* Assault
* All categories of violent crime
* Racism
* The oppression of the physically weak
.
4. The bearing of arms, of "bearing arms and being trained to arms", is not simply a "right". It is a duty - YOUR duty - if you claim Citizenship in the United States. //I// cannot penalize you for declining to do so...but I can tell you that you are an abject failure as a Citizen if you decline to do so, because...
5. The bearing of arms by Citizens of the United States has one purpose, and only one purpose: Safeguarding the security of the state - and by extension, "the People" - against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.
.
Numbers 1, 2 & 3 are no longer open for debate. Don't bother trying to argue with me about it. Don't bother bitching if it offends you. I will delete your comment, and I may unfriend you as a result. If this offends you, and makes you think that I am violating your right to voice your opinion, consider that by your support for "gun control", you support eliminating my right to the one thing that guarantees //your// right to say what you like.
Your argument is thus well and truly invalid.
.
We are now going to talk about #4 and #5.
The "pro-Gun Control" crowd - especially those in government - likes to poo-poo the very idea of the 2nd Amendment. This is clear, from their attitude when it comes up -- so, class, let's review:
"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the defense of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
.
This seems to be pretty straightforward, yet the "pro-gun" side continually allows the "anti's" to invent and apply meaningless minutiae to try and neutralize it. One of the favorite hits used is the near-complete lack laws regarding the "militia" in the United States Code...
...At this point, we need to digress into the dim, dark recesses of US law.
First, one salient point must be understood: as cited by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in its decision in "Barron v. Baltimore, 1833", except where specifically noted, the US Constitution applies to the Federal Government, and the Federal Government alone. This is why citing the 2nd Amendment in a state court is always a losing proposition. The same, incidentally, goes for Heller, 2008.
More on that later.
Second, is the US Code -- this is the body of law of the United States. The code exists to expand and cover areas not specifically covered by the Constitution...
...In theory, at least. The side of the fence the "anti's" sit on has demonstrated repeatedly their willingness to eviscerate theory, in both concept and practice.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgifrific.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F06%2FBoy-That-Escalated-Quickly-Anchorman.gif&hash=be8b07d7a0e62d21bd909960c4cd8afa8763ab48)
-
If the "M" word is involved, I'm headed the other way!
Not that 'M' word, the other 'M' word.
-
The Militia is defined by the Militia Act of 1790.....I believe that has been subsumed into the U. S. Codes but I can't remember which.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
-
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
U.S. Code › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 12 › § 246
10 U.S. Code § 246 - 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.
-
U.S. Code › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 251
10 U.S. Code § 251 - Federal aid for State governments
Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 15, § 331; renumbered § 251, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, § 1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)
-
U.S. Code › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 252
10 U.S. Code § 252 - Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 15, § 332; Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title X, § 1057(a)(2), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3440; renumbered § 252, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, § 1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)
-
U.S. Code › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 253
10 U.S. Code § 253 - Interference with State and Federal law
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 15, § 333; Pub. L. 109–364, div. A, title X, § 1076(a)(1), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2404; Pub. L. 110–181, div. A, title X, § 1068(a)(1), Jan. 28, 2008, 122 Stat. 325; renumbered § 253, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, § 1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)
-
U.S. Code › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 254
10 U.S. Code § 254 - Proclamation to disperse
Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 16, § 334; Pub. L. 109–364, div. A, title X, § 1076(a)(2), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2405; Pub. L. 110–181, div. A, title X, § 1068(a)(2), Jan. 28, 2008, 122 Stat. 325; renumbered § 254, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, § 1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)
-
Never fly, too many states are scrambling for revenues and I doubt anything that isn't considered food would be tax free. Clothing is essential part of life and it has a sales tax.
-
Food is taxed in Illinois, just at a lower rate than other items... =| =|
-
Food is taxed in Illinois, just at a lower rate than other items... =| =|
I believe it's the same here in MO.
-
Never fly, too many states are scrambling for revenues and I doubt anything that isn't considered food would be tax free. Clothing is essential part of life and it has a sales tax.
So does food in many places. Same exorbitant rate as any other product here.
-
Never fly, too many states are scrambling for revenues and I doubt anything that isn't considered food would be tax free. Clothing is essential part of life and it has a sales tax.
How dare you question the political viability of my hypothetical legislation?!
-
Food is taxed in Illinois, just at a lower rate than other items... =| =|
Iowa prepared food it is i.e. Restaurants. The other types of food, such as groceries are not.
-
How dare you question the political viability of my hypothetical legislation?!
Because I sit through the sad reality of government meetings almost monthly now.
-
Prepared food, raw food, no difference, it gets taxed, even farmers market vendors are required to collect sales tax applicable to the jurisdiction they are selling in. "On Farm" sales however are not taxed.
Basically Oklahoma expects sales tax to be collected anytime goods of any kind are exchanged even flea markets and yard sales.
They are really going after internet sales tax collection of late. Amazon has caved and collects taxes. Only problem is they collect taxes applicable to the city closest to me but I do not actually live inside city limits so should not be hit for the city sales tax, only county and state.