Does Tennessee Need a Statewide Militia?

[Dan Lee]

Friends.. By asking this question, I want you to know that I take this question very serious. It is not asked flippantly, lightly, or without agonizing thought over the perception of "increased rhetoric" that the left may have over it, & how they may try to spin it.

With that said, & with the recent usurpation of Congressional Authority by a rogue liberal judge regarding ACORN funding (among others), & our own state issues, do you think it's time to create a formidable statewide militia in TN? I'm talking about a very well trained & dedicated force. I have not made my mind up by any means, but I do now generally fear my Government, & I know I'm far from the only one. Please give me your thoughts. Were these founding fathers & politicians quoted below fools or geniuses? Or do you think their thoughts are "outdated" because we've become more "sophisticated". I would submit that we've actually digressed.

What say you?



“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson



“The Framers [of the Constitution] knew that free speech is the friend of change and revolution. But they also knew that it is always the deadliest enemy of tyranny." -Hugo Black



“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." -Thomas Jefferson"

[1gewehr]

The Militia of the State of Tennessee consists of two elements:
1) The Tennessee State Guard, an organized, trained, all-volunteer force that can only be called out by the governor or State Adjutant General.
2) The unorganized militia consisting of all able-bodied adults in each county can be called out by the county Sheriff or the Governor or State Adjutant General.

[johnharris]

Yes, the concept and original intent was that not only do we need one but that its a personal duty of each of us to adequately arm and train so as to be useful should we be called. I do not think that a bunch of civilians showing up with much of the armaments that you see at the range and at gun shows would prove an effective force hence the founders and even the Tennessee Supreme court (back when it thought constitutionally rather than politically) talked about civilian ownership of weapons suitable for military use.

[macville]

What does it takes to be considered a militia in TN? Because as far as I am concerned I am my own Militia and therefore should have all rights as a private citizen AND a militia (just to annoy those pesky idiots who can't understand what a comma means and never read what was originally written for the 2d.) Therefore, I should be able to own any weapon without restrictions.

Just here to drive the liberals crazy...

Matthew

[Dan Lee]

I think a future goal should be that we get class 3 restrictions ect.. removed. Obviously we have other things to work on before that, but the restrictions are scary. They put too much power in the hands of a Govermentally funded standing army, & those that command it. As it stands it looks like I'll be joining one. I found a really great bunch of guys who are experienced warriors. US Military, Spec Ops, Navy ect.. Constitutionally minded, & nothing else.

[johnharris]

[photoguy67]

[Dan Lee]

Hey bud,

It's an open group, but has a three step interview process. They don't want any extremists joining, (even though you will always be viewed as an extremist these days by some, just for joining one) so they have a pretty good screening process. The group is mostly composed of Christian men & women, & has no racial barriers. No illegal weapons of any kind, or illegally modded weapons are allowed, & they make clear that they are Constitutionally minded, which is the only reason I was willing to apply. I'm at step II in the process. With the exception of the FBI's incorrect presumption that ALL militias are "anti-government", & engage in anti-government rhetoric, this group does not have a problem with responsible government, & would be considered by the FBI (because they are always watching militias, like it or not) as a Category One Militia. See here for explanation:

You can check out the one I chose to contact here. I personally believe this group has pure motives from what I've gathered thus far.

http://www.1sttnrifles.net/

Here is what the FBI's position is on a Category I militia, with my opinions added in parenthesis:

The Militia Threat Assessment Typology

Category I Militia Groups


Conduct paramilitary training. (Correct)


Base their organizational philosophies on anti-government rhetoric. (Incorrect! In most cases. Our Government has engaged in plenty of unconstitutional action, & the concerned discussion of those actions are more than "rhetoric", they are fact, & a legitimate cause for concern.)


Maintain a primarily defensive philosophical posture. Plans for violent action are contingent upon perceived government provocation. (Almost correct! I know of no responsible militia that would act on any information other than information that suggests that there is a clear, present & persistent danger to the citizens of their jurisdiction. The threat would have to be confirmed by careful assessment of the facts, & not just perceived. It is my personal opinion that this particular statement by the FBI, paints militias with a very broad brush, & does not help to improve the relations between the government & such groups.


Engage in no known criminal activity. (Correct)

[johnharris]

[Dan Lee]

Thanks John! All that information is very helpful to me, & I'm sure for others as well..

[JayC]

[johnharris]

Although it could hurt some who see the 86 act as an investment, I would be glad to contribute to an action to defeat it.

[JayC]

[johnharris]

Jay, I do not recall a case specifically addressing it. I do recall the government's brief in Miller essentially conceded that it could not ban possession of short barrel shotguns but that it did have the ability to tax them and the idea was in 1934 was that the $200 tax was so high that it would effectively restrict ownership to large portions of the population. The issue becomes whether the 86 ban is constitutional (what happens as the pre86 guns break and/or decline in availability so that there is no general market in them for the civilians) and if not whether the government can intentionally set a tax so high that it infringes ownership (that is, a tax that far exceeds the value of the item, the necessity of the tax which one would argue should only be high enough - if at all - to administer a constitutionally justified program). The approach of Heller lays some interesting arguments as now part of Supreme Court's analysis on the basis for the 2nd Amendment and the growing restriction on government meddling or infringement.

[1gewehr]

Farmer v. Higgins [907 F.2d 1041, 1990] the US District Court found that Farmer was correct in interpreting the FOPA Hughes Amendment as being 'Catch 22'. But the ruling was later reversed by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals 11th Circuit found that Congress clearly determined to ban private possession of machine guns.

United States v. Rock Island Armory (1991) - United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois ruling one cannot be prosecuted for 1934 National Firearms Act violations for machine guns produced after 1986:
"...since enactment of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), the Secretary has refused to accept any tax payments to make or transfer a machine gun made after May 19, 1986, to approve any such making or transfer, or to register any such machine gun. As applied to machine guns made and possessed after May 19, 1986, the registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act, Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, no longer serve any revenue purpose, and are impliedly repealed or are unconstitutional."

Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968) - A case in which the Supreme Court declared part of the registration requirements of the National Firearms Act to be in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

With such conflicting rulings, you would suppose that the Supreme Court would be eager to settle the issue. US v Hamblen will be appealed to the Supremes, and as this is a clear, obvious 2nd Amendment case, you would imagine that it would be a good case to settle the law once and for all. But I personally believe that the SCOTUS has no interest in settling the law as it would have a choice between scuttling 75 years of federal laws or ignoring all precedent and declaring the 2nd Amendment to be dead. I further believe that the SCOTUS is perfectly willing to hear cases with very limited scope where they can be obtuse and skirt the issue.

[wlhawk]

[RichardAHamblen]

I'm sorry fellows, I need to follow the posts more frequently.

The short answer is that the state already has a militia, the authorities are derelict in failing to organize it properly. The Militia can neither be created nor disbanded by any law, because its existence predates and is recognized by the constitutions of both the United States and of Tennessee.

The questions you raise about the Militia are the very ones I am arguing in court. Go to the threads on my case that are located here. Look up "Hamblen".

We are presently preparing to petition the Supreme Court again. I need your help!! Publicize the case!!

For your information, the Court has already ruled that weapons that are any part of the ordinary military equipment of the type in common use are protected by the Second Amendment. Where? United States vs. Miller. Read the decision. The Supreme Court did not uphold the NFA, but rather sent the case back to the original jurisdiction for further discovery where the surviving defendant (the other defendant having been murdered) obligingly plead guilty in exchange for probation, thus failing to introduce evidence that the weapon he was charged with possessing (a short barreled shotgun) was "part of the ordinary military equipment" by citing such facts as the US Army purchasing some 50,000 of them for use in WW1, and thus constitutionally protected. This is what all the gun laws in the country are based on--a lie!

The system is not honest. If you examine the record and the evidence you cannot conclude otherwise. We are placed in the position of having to win an argument with a liar. (We really are in a world of hurt. Have you read about Obama's proposed Council of Governors?)

I am posting here a summary of the current state of the case. Feel free to cut paste and circulate. You can go to this site for the case documents:

State of the Case

Hamblen vs United States

January 19, 2010


"As you probably know, the Sixth Circuit affirmed my conviction, devoting all of two paragraphs to discussion, hardly the debate of my claims that my trial judge Todd Campbell said "reasonable jurists" should make when he said in December, 2008 that he was convinced I had made a "substantial showing" that my constitutional rights had been denied as far as my Second Amendment claim was concerned. The rationale that the panel offered was this:

1) that I was acting outside my scope of duties as a state guardsman when I possessed machine guns, and that my act was contrary to state guard policy. This in effect denies that the second amendment is a right, since if you have to ask permission to exercise a right then it is no longer a right but a privilege. This is akin to saying you have a right to keep and bear arms, but it is our policy to not let you exercise that right. State guard "policy" is however contrary to the state statute organizing the state guard, as the state guard is specifically mandated by statute to be a "reserve armed force" for the National Guard. The state owns 21 machine guns for the entire force, no magazines, and no ammunition. You can't be an armed force without arms. This is what the Second Amendment is all about: when the authorities fail to equip the militia, the people have the right to arm themselves.

2) my contention is wrong that a proper reading of US vs. Miller supports my actions. They dismissed this by saying that it is just not so, because Justice Scalia says so in Heller, and that's that. You read Miller and see for yourself what it says. Miller does not affirm the NFA. Furthermore, the Sixth Circuit quotes that insidious phrase in Heller introduced by Gura, Cato and Co about protection for "arms in common use owned by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes". Besides being contrary to Miller, (which says the Militia consists of everyone physically capable of bearing arms, who, when called up, are to report bearing arms provided by themselves, that are "part of the ordinary military equipment ...of the type in common use"), and recognized as problematic by the Solicitor General of the US in the oral arguments to Heller( “it is more than a little difficult to say that the one arm that's not protected by the Second Amendment is that which is the standard issue armament for the National Guard, and that's what the machine gun is” ), this is circular logic--are the arms uncommon because they are unlawful, or unlawful because they are uncommon? And if uncommon, why is there a need to regulate them?

This Sixth Circuit rationale is what I am going to address in my petition to the Supreme Court. We will expand this of course by a complete examination of the ruling in Miller, as well as pointing out certain niceties about constitutional law, such as the fact that the Second Amendment of 1791 effectively removes arms from any jurisdiction claimed by the Federal Government in the Constitution of 1787, just as surely as the Thirteenth Amendment removes chattel slavery from any protection found in the same Constitution. Now I know well that this is heading for denial, since I am in effect calling the Supreme Court, and specifically Justice Scalia, liars, or more charitably, idiots, neither of which will sit well with their collective ego. That does not change the fact that they are. It is called speaking truth to power.


In sum, I am asking merely that the Supreme Court honor its ruling from 1939 and apply it to the law. We seek to invent no new and novel interpretation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but rather gain a recognition of the ruling already made by the Court in Miller. And if they cannot apply the ruling from Miller, they need to explain to us all why not." --Richard A. Hamblen January 19, 2010

[RichardAHamblen]

Bump.

[MitchSchaft]

Any progress, Richard?