Tazewell County Virginia passes 2A sanctuary status unanimously, and also passes order of militia

In response to tyrannical gun control measures recently passed in Virginia, Tazewell county has unanimously become a 2nd Amendment sanctuary county.

Over 30 VA counties have done the same.

Interestingly, they have also introduced a militia, composed of the counties able bodied citizens.

This militia will train together and can be called to duty by local law enforcement, performing duties such as keeping the peace, suppressing rebellion, and repelling invasion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

More here...

Tazewell County becomes Second Amendment Sanctuary, adds militia ordinance during widely attended meeting
https://www.heraldcourier.com/news/...cle_6a3d4e37-64f2-5365-9b71-7e4a694602e3.html

 

If cities, counties, and even entire states are free to declare that they will not comply with federal regulations pertaining to illicit narcotic substances, or even immigration law, there is literally no reason the same cannot be done with regard to the matter of firearms.

 

Yes, perhaps thats true (its certainly used as a political tactic)-but this is different more complex.

Virginia is trying to pass a law that makes it illegal to congregate with other armed citizens-a way to ban a militia.

By passing an order of militia, the county officials are putting up their lives, jobs, and fortune up for their beliefs.

The county sheriff has ultimate law enforcement authority in said county-it can actually force a state police force or state guard out of the county.

The Governor could activate the state national guard-but they could be federalized by the federal govt.

Who would the ATF side with?

Lots of unknowns here-but that county is walking the walk.

 

Unconstitutional and illegal. They need to read Article 1. The Founding Fathers wanted all military forces to be subject to federal authority.

 

The difference is this is in response to the state laws the new Dem majority in VA government plans to pass.
In some states, the sheriff - an elected official - is the highest law enforcement officer, and if he decides to not enforce the law, it doesn't get enforced. VA may be one of these states.

 

Then the federal government can challenge the matter in a court of law.

 

And lose - they're called state militias for a reason, and they are under state authority unless called up by the federal government.

 

Clearly you have no idea how the founders felt about standing federal armies.

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title44/chapter1/section44-1/

Constitution of Virginia

Article I. Bill of Rights
Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.


Code of Virginia

§ 44-1. Composition of militia.
The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons resident in the Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least 16 years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years of age. The militia shall be divided into three classes: the National Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard; the Virginia Defense Force; and the unorganized militia.

1930, p. 948; 1942, p. 642; Michie Code 1942, § 2673(1); 1944, p. 24; 1958, c. 393; 1970, c. 662; 1973, c. 401; 1976, c. 399; 1979, c. 647; 1984, c. 765; 1989, c. 414; 2011, cc. 572, 586; 2015, c. 221.

 

The state militias were implemented to resist, if necessary, a standing federal army.

The guy you quoted has no idea what he's talking about.

 

I'll let Johnny be my comment.

 

The "unorganized militia" is not really a militia at all. It is just some meaningless term that someone came up with in the 20th Century so that America could pretend it still had a citizen militia. In reality, the National Guard replaced the citizen militia.

 

That's funny, because I see the term "unorganized militia" in the Code of Virginia in 2019.

I mean you can pretend it's not there if you want. I can assure you the people of Tazewell county take it very seriously.

Ask me how I know.

 

It sounds like Tazwell county is trying to create an actual militia (not an "unorganized" one). I mean according to the OP their militia will be "performing duties such as keeping the peace, suppressing rebellion, and repelling invasion". They are not just some body of citizens that sit around and never engage in any militia activities but call themselves a militia.

Do they have authorization from the federal government to do that? Are they subject to federal authority? The president is supposed to be the commander-in-chief of all military forces (army, militia, navy, etc.) in the nation.

 

A guy who uses the term "unConstitutional" suggests the state, or the People, needs permission from the federal government to have a militia.

People like you are why the 2A exists.

 

You lost the argument over 200 years ago when the Constitution was ratified.

You lost it again when the Confederacy thought they could have their own military force but was defeated. Maybe Virginians will get put in their place again....

 

And since the united state federal government is not going after the states that have legalized marijuana within their boundaries, despite it still being prohibited at the federal level, the government has long this particular argument.

 

Haha doubling down on why we have the 2A.

And no, I didn't "lose the argument" when the Constitution was ratified. The Bill of Rights was also intentional and methodical.

Neither of which you understand based on your statements so far.

"The People" don't need the government's "permission" to keep and bear arms, and the government is forbidden from infringing on it.

If the government abandons the Constitution, then we will abandon them.

The people who got put in their place during the civil war were Democrats for refusing to abide by the Constitution.

 

The founders used several different types of militias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

In a bit of irony for a former confederate state-these county militias are seeking to by subject of the federal govt, rather than the state govt that is seeking to disarm them and forbid them from gathering.

 

Indeed. In VA the sheriff is the highest legal authority at the state level.

 

Amen.

This is a decidedly more direct and aggressive response to creeping tyranny.

And once again, Virginia finds itself on the front lines.

 

The national guard is an organized militia.

These militias popping up are unorganized militias.

 

Lol.

 

Virginia Sheriff: ‘I Will Deputize Thousands of Citizens To Protect Their Gun Rights’

https://www.secondamendmentdaily.co...ands-of-citizens-to-protect-their-gun-rights/

Add Culpepper county to the list.

 

Good!

 

This is the exact argument that proves the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” recognized in the 2nd Amendment is not a militia right. That illegitimate interpretation of the Amendment argues the 2nd Amendment only recognizes a militia right—that is—a right to have an armed militia or a right of individual militia members to keep and bear arms while in militia service.

As you note, Article I Section 8 gives Congress total power over the organization of, arming of, and disciplining the state militias.

Congress can use its organizing power to exclude you from militia participation. The only exception to this power is the reserved power to the states to appoint the militia’s officers—but even here the individual citizen has no power to force their way into the militia system. Either the Congress or the state has to allow you first. A “right of the people” that requires the pre-approval of the government before you may begin to exercise it is no right at all.

Furthermore—even if the government allowed you to participate, then the arming power gives Congress alone the power to choose what, if any, arms you will be allowed to possess. There is no “right of the people” involved here.

Finally, Congress’ power to “discipline” the militia give it the power to choose when and where you would be allowed to touch any arms that it condescended to allow you to have.

If the right protected in the 2nd Amendment is limited to militia participation (as the Heller minority incorrectly assumed—without explanation), then we cannot call it a “right of the people.” It would merely be an activity which the government permits (or doesn’t) permit us to engage in.

The National Guard is the current militia. It’s creation and organization are the result of Congress exercising its power over the state militias.

The Federal Constitution does not prohibit a locality from creating its own militia. What it does do is prohibit states and localities from passing laws contrary to what Congress—in the exercise of its legitimate power—has enacted. The federal constitutional question here would be whether the Congress, by exercising its power over the militias, has preempted the ability to create a local militia. If it has, then the Article VI supremacy clause would invalidate the local ordinance regarding the militia. If it has not, then the local ordinance would survive a federal challenge. Whether it would survive a state challenge is another argument altogether.