|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
SC: South Carolina Senator Suggests Everyone be Made Militia Member
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A South Carolina senator has a proposal to make sure no federal law can ever seize guns — make everyone over 17 who can legally own a gun a member of a militia. South Carolina's constitution allows the governor to call up an “unorganized militia" of any “able bodied male citizens” between ages 18 and 45. State Sen. Tom Corbin's proposal would automatically expand membership to everyone who is over 17 and could own a gun. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(3/24/2021)
|
| Redundant. The "Uniform Militia Act of 1792" already states adults are already either organized militia, or unorganized militia. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/24/2021)
|
MarkHamTownsend -
Reiterating it at the state/county/local level can't hurt. The Militia Act deals with nationalizing the militia. The states/counties/localities need teeth in their own laws to claim the power to activate the militia to deal with their own contingencies. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
