3 ms·

Defending against this would be a perfect use of Florida State Guard, as such groups aren't controlled by the federal government. Unfortunately as of 1947, Flor

by logn 12y ago

Defending against this would be a perfect use of Florida State Guard, as such groups aren't controlled by the federal government. Unfortunately as of 1947, Florida now only has the Florida National Guard which is under federal control. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_State_Guard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_State_Guard For all the talk of 2nd Amendment (guns rights) advocates, I think they miss the obvious use cases: well organized (and locally controlled) militias, such as the Florida State Guard.

bmelton 12y ago
> For all the talk of 2nd Amendment (guns rights) advocates, I think they miss the obvious use cases: well organized (and locally controlled) militias, such as the Florida State Guard. That's because Florida outlawed them[1], along with many other states. [1] - http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=870.06&URL=0800-0899/0870/Sections/0870.06.html http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20St...
- bashinator 12y ago
  Wouldn't outlawing militias be unconstitutional under the second amendment?
  - mullingitover 12y ago
    Only if the federal government outlawed them. The states have a right to maintain a militia, but not an obligation.
  - hga 12y ago
    Right now the Supremes are refusing to admit that it means anything besides having a right to have a gun in your home for self-defense. The "and bear" arms minor detail just might as well not exist. Militias, which the bare wording of that Florida law wouldn't quite seem to outlaw (presumptively assume it was part of the general post-Reconstruction effort to keep freedmen "in their place"; with the exception of efforts to suppress dueling American gun control got it's start in that), aren't even operationally part of the 2nd Amendment except as a justification for the RKBA part, and that was basically a sop thrown at the Founders who disliked standing armies but couldn't get far with veterans like Washington pointing out the limits of militias. I can go a lot further in this analysis if you wish, but one of the foundational principles is above, a tension between the militias (safe but less effective), "regulars" (less safe, more effective), and "select militias" (utterly dangerous and not effective except in internal oppression). Our Founders did not like the idea of select militias at all, the phrase had connotations around the strength of e.g. Communist ... and surprise, surprise, our modern, paramilitary police are very close to that definition. With outsiders like the Federal Marshalls when they pull these sorts of stunts (see also Ruby Ridge) pretty much fitting it to a T. The other thing to initially look at is the Constitution's provisions for militias. Outlawing them at the state level would negate the rights and duties of the Congress about them ... something in part sidestepped with the creation of the National Guard, which until Heller made the point moot our betters insisted were the militia.
- fiter 12y ago
  Your citation does not seem prevent militias like the Florida State Guard. The Florida State Guard would fall under the "regularly organized land and naval militia of this state" exemption.

by logn 12y ago

bmelton 12y ago

> For all the talk of 2nd Amendment (guns rights) advocates, I think they miss the obvious use cases: well organized (and locally controlled) militias, such as the Florida State Guard. That's because Florida outlawed them[1], along with many other states. [1] - http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=870.06&URL=0800-0899/0870/Sections/0870.06.html http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20St...

bashinator 12y ago
Wouldn't outlawing militias be unconstitutional under the second amendment?
- mullingitover 12y ago
  Only if the federal government outlawed them. The states have a right to maintain a militia, but not an obligation.
- hga 12y ago
  Right now the Supremes are refusing to admit that it means anything besides having a right to have a gun in your home for self-defense. The "and bear" arms minor detail just might as well not exist. Militias, which the bare wording of that Florida law wouldn't quite seem to outlaw (presumptively assume it was part of the general post-Reconstruction effort to keep freedmen "in their place"; with the exception of efforts to suppress dueling American gun control got it's start in that), aren't even operationally part of the 2nd Amendment except as a justification for the RKBA part, and that was basically a sop thrown at the Founders who disliked standing armies but couldn't get far with veterans like Washington pointing out the limits of militias. I can go a lot further in this analysis if you wish, but one of the foundational principles is above, a tension between the militias (safe but less effective), "regulars" (less safe, more effective), and "select militias" (utterly dangerous and not effective except in internal oppression). Our Founders did not like the idea of select militias at all, the phrase had connotations around the strength of e.g. Communist ... and surprise, surprise, our modern, paramilitary police are very close to that definition. With outsiders like the Federal Marshalls when they pull these sorts of stunts (see also Ruby Ridge) pretty much fitting it to a T. The other thing to initially look at is the Constitution's provisions for militias. Outlawing them at the state level would negate the rights and duties of the Congress about them ... something in part sidestepped with the creation of the National Guard, which until Heller made the point moot our betters insisted were the militia.
fiter 12y ago
Your citation does not seem prevent militias like the Florida State Guard. The Florida State Guard would fall under the "regularly organized land and naval militia of this state" exemption.