Colorado is home to more than 424,000 veterans, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs. If a team composed of the Bureau of Alcohol and Firearms, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the VA had its way, some of those veterans would lose access to firearms.
The irony is rich. Those best trained to use firearms safely are among the first at which the government aimed. According to the Daily Caller, the VA is using veterans’ medical records to place some veterans on the FBI background check list. So far, approximately 120,000 nationwide have made it to the list. Here’s the rationale, according to a Daily Caller article:
“The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is involved in a government effort to disarm America’s veterans and seniors who may lack the capacity to manage their finances.
And it’s not just veterans facing this scrutiny: now it’s anybody who gets Social Security.”
According to the article, Colorado’s over 750,000 social security beneficiaries may fall into the same loophole. There may be some overlap between the veterans and social security beneficiaries; however, this triumvirate of terror is talking about potentially taking away Second Amendment rights for a large swath of Colorado’s population.
Leftist politicians could not take away Second Amendment rights by legislation due to the uproar around the Gun Grabs, so they find a sneaky solution. It’s shameful. And, if lacking the capacity to manage finances is a crime, lock us all up.
No such thing as a 'regulated' militia. You may be trying to refer to the 'unorganized' militia. But even that doesn't wash. People want to pretend they know what they are talking about when they make comments like this, but working from ignorance doesn't work.
First, Current US law regarding the militia:
10 U.S. Code § 311 – Militia: composition and classes
Title 10-ARMED FORCES Subtitle A-General Military Law PART I-ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS CHAPTER 13-THE MILITIA
(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.
Of course that law is subordinate to the 2nd Amendment which states:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Next, the argument that we don't know what the authors of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights meant by 'militia' is also advanced out of ignorance – and manipulation by those who take advantage of that ignorance (see Gruber, et al). We know exactly what they meant. The Militia Acts of 1792, enacted just a few years after the signing of the Constitution in 1787 (and before 'national guard' legislation) clearly show us what was meant by 'militia' when used by the framers of The Constitution. George Washington used it – so there can be no doubt what the 'founding fathers' meant at the time. It is the foundation for conscription (used as recently as the Vietnam War), so one cannot honestly pretend not to know it existed.
The Acts REQUIRED that every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 be ready to serve in the local militia. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages 18-54)
They stated that these men (essentially everyone) were REQUIRED, by law, to own weapons – at their own expense. Each of these men were REQUIRED to "… provide himself…" with the state of the art weapons at the time: "a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack."
Re-writing history never serves a beneficial purpose. The use of the term 'militia' did not 'limit' the ownership of guns – it 'required' it.
The only real conclusions you might really be able to make using the Militia argument is that women should not own guns unless they join the military (Think anyone wants to advance that suggestion? I think not. Certainly no politician wants to come out with that suggestion.) and everyone should have them taken away on their 45th birthday – unless they've been in the military, then it is age 64 (section 313 of title 32). Think anyone wants to advance that suggestion, either? Can't imagine they'd risk re-election that way either.
Plus, to suggest either, they would have to admit they know and have known exactly what 'militia' means – really, really not going to happen. A politician freely admit they have been lying? Nope, not gonna happen. They won't do it when they've been caught red handed!
Wonderful idea.
If you are not in a regulated milita, then you don't get to bear arms.