This interview was quoted from the Daily
Edwin Vieira: There are far too many to compile here. The five most consequential for the average man's understanding of the present-day issue of "gun control" are that: (i) The maintenance of freedom depends inextricably upon the American people's collective participation in "well regulated Militia," not upon individual action; (ii) "A well regulated Militia" is composed of nearly all of the eligible adult residents in a State, who are required by law to serve; (iii) Every member of such a Militia (other than conscientious objectors) must be armed with one or more firearms, ammunition and accoutrements suitable for Militia service, all of which must always be maintained in his personal possession; (iv) Because two of the most important responsibilities of the Militia are to repel invasions by foreign countries and to put down domestic usurpation and tyranny by rogue public officials, every armed member of the Militia must be equipped with a firearm suitable for those specific purposes − which means a firearm equivalent to, if not better than, the firearms contemporary regular armed forces bear: that is, not just a semi-automatic, magazine-fed rifle in 5.56 x 45 (.223) or 7.62 x 39 caliber, but a fully automatic or burst-fire rifle, preferable in a caliber more effective than the latter calibers, such as 6.5 x 38 Grendel (which can be made to work reliably on an AR-15 or M-16 platform); and (v) because "the Militia of the several States" are State governmental institutions, no contemporary form of "gun control" can be applied to them or their members by either Congress or the States' legislatures. Rather, it is the duty of Congress and the States' legislatures to see that all members of the Militia are properly armed, not to any degree disarmed. That is, as to the Militia and their members (which includes essentially all adult Americans), all forms of contemporary "gun control," including those of the Feinstein and Cuomo patterns (to name two of the more infamous poster-children for "gun control"), are absolutely unconstitutional.
Edwin Vieira: If you mean do individuals need to
militia, on their own, then the constitutional answer is an unequivocal NO. The
constitutional Militia, "the Militia of the several States"
incorporated in the original Constitution and the "well regulated
Militia" to which the Second Amendment refers, are
institutions or establishments. This is what imbues them with legal − indeed,
constitutional − authority, which no private militia can possibly claim.
Think about it: If the people on the south side of
On the other hand, if the problem is viewed from the constitutionally false perspective of "the individual right to keep and bear arms," then "gun control" becomes a matter of what can be deemed "reasonable" in relation to something other than the maintenance of the Militia and "the security of a free State." Something, perhaps, with highly emotional appeal, such as guaranteeing the supposed "safety" of children from irresponsible, criminal, or insane individuals who somehow get their hands on guns. If "gun control" is aimed only at curtailing some vague "individual right" entirely separate from the Militia and the maintenance of "a free State" (which is inextricably tied to the Militia, not to any "individual right"), then why is it not perfectly "reasonable" to prohibit the possession of some sorts − indeed, many or even most sorts − of firearms, by some or even many sorts of putatively "dangerous" people, as long as individuals not within the prohibited classes are left with a few firearms with which arguably they can defend themselves as individuals against adventitious attacks by common criminals?
Vieira: Always. As Mao Tse-tung
correctly observed. "[p]olitical power
grows out of the barrel of a gun." The Second Amendment makes the same
point but with a special political and ethical gloss: "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." In
Comment by Ron Avery:
Edwin after making it clear that we live under a police
state which by definition is not a lawful state he wants us to question the
authority of every official and court. He proves beyond doubt that the courts
are making unconstitutional rulings and that all kinds of unconstitutional
legislation and executive orders are being made. Yet he then asserts that
individuals do not have the right to be armed outside their official state
militia. Edwin seems to think that tyranny and usurpation is limited to the
union and that states are somehow immune to the same. If the individual does
not have the God given right to be armed as well as any
Edwin has made an impressive list of alterations to the constitutional form of our state and federal governments but has not derived the correct result. The result is dissolution of the federal government and the removal of the authority of every official and employee of it.
The God given way to defend our lives, liberties and possessions and communities is by our right to keep and bear every type of ARMS and to form local militias for that purpose alone against both tyranny from federal, state and foreign sources.
Edwin seems to think that citizen made militias need authority between themselves. The only authority a militia can have is to protect life, liberty and property of individuals and the community. There is no need to establish governmental authority in a militia.
Edwin proves to us how far our own governments have decayed and then he directs us to our only hope in appealing to tyrants to form state militias which ain't going to happen as they are just as tyrannical and dissolved as the federal union and are cooperating in their designs.
Our only hope is in our God given right to form local fully armed militias as so stated in the Second Amendment.
Comment by Jon Roland:
Edwin has done much good work in this book and elsewhere,
but he tends to make the mistake that a "militia" is illegal if there
is no statute that specifically authorizes it.
Is it illegal to speak without a statute authorizing it? Is the First Amendment necessary to make it legal, or was it legal before the First Amendment was ratified?
Similarly for all the other rights: press, assembly, petition, religion, due process, jury, just compensation, equal protection, etc.
The basic error is the presumption that "anything that is not permitted is forbidden." That's not the way our legal legacy works. The proper presumption is that "anything that is not forbidden or restricted is permitted" and "there must be a specific delegation of authority to an official to forbid or restrict anything". Public action defaults to permission in the absence of authority to restrict them. If there is no authority to restrict militia, and there isn't for any purpose other than to enhance its effectiveness, then any official regulation that does not make militia stronger is unconstitutional. Honest men may disagree on how best to make it stronger, but virtually all gun control laws do the opposite, and therefore cannot be constitutional.
The Framers did envisage that there would be state and local militia statutes, and that state officials would appoint or provide for the election of militia commanders. But if they neglect to do so, then that duty defaults back to the people, just as it would if, for example, local officials all abandoned their offices and left the people with no officials on the job. In such a situation the people just have to follow any law there is to replace them, probably by conducting special elections. Such bootstrapping is how government has had to get started at the outset. The very first elections were just done by volunteers at their own expense, before there were any "laws" to provide guidance, or any public funds to pay for it.
"Militia", properly understood, is actually older than the human species. Our hominid ancestors organized themselves into defensive units we can recognize as militia. Chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and various monkeys still do. Most social species have at least a rudiment of militia. In a sense, "militia duty" is the same as the duty that comes with the social contract. It is the expression of the social contract in situations that involve defense against a common threat.
Edwin Vieira responded in CAPS:
] Edwin has done much good work in this book and elsewhere, but he
] tends to make the mistake that a "militia" is illegal if there is
] no statute that specifically authorizes it.
] NOWHERE IN THE SWORD AND SOVEREIGNTY (OR ANYWHERE ELSE) DO I TAKE THE POSITION JON ATTRIBUTES TO ME IN THE PRECEDING SENTENCE.
This comment is not just, or primarily, about this book, but about how you have treated this point in several things you have written, including what you just wrote below.
] A "MILITIA" (IF IT CAN BE CALLED THAT) FORMED WITHOUT A STATUTE, OR NOT RATIFIED LATER BY A STATUTE, CANNOT BE ONE OF OR PART OF "THE MILITIA OF THE SEVERAL STATES", AND THEREFORE CANNOT CLAIM ANY SPECIFICALLY CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS.
That brings us to the nub of my objection. The "militia of the several states" is the people of those states, in their capacity as defenders of one another, regardless of their state of organization or lack thereof. They are militia just by being alive and here. So of course so is any subset of them a "part" of it. My objection is to your insistence on treating militia as some kind of organization. That is not, essentially, what the concept is all about. There can be militia organizations, that we can call "units", "companies", "brigades", etc., depending on the number in the organization, but they are "militia" as long as they are not enemies of the communities. Just standing there, not breaking any laws or hurting anyone, is militia.
It is not being "authorized" by statute that makes something "constitutional". It is constitutional just by being something for which there is no constitutional authority to forbid, such as speech, press, assembly, petition, religion, etc. Anything that cannot be constitutionally prohibited has constitutional status.
Now another issue arises if a militia unit tries to enforce a law, such as by conducting an investigation, making a custodial arrest, and delivering the accused to a court of competent jurisdiction for arraignment. Just as the law in every state allows for civilians to do those things, and make arrests for felonies and more serious misdemeanors, they can also gather into a militia unit to do that, and when they do their authority does not come from some "constitutional status" but from the particular law they are enforcing, which confers the authority of law on all those who enforce it, regardless of any office they may or may not hold , if the law does not explicitly restrict who may enforce it.
Similarly, if they respond to some other threat, such as invasion, their authority for doing that comes not from the Constitution but from the threat. That could be be crime, disease, disinformation, or a natural disaster.
] BUT THAT IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING "ILLEGAL", ROOT AND BRANCH. HOWEVER, SUCH A NON-STATUTORY "MILITIA" COULD VERY WELL BE ILLEGAL, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, DEPENDING UPON ITS ACTIVITIES,
But it would be any injurious activities that might be illegal, not the mere assembly of the members, especially for mere organizing and training. Don't conflate these things. Your treatment of the subject lends itself to be taken that way.
] AND CERTAINLY WOULD BE AT BEST EXTRA-LEGAL IF IT WERE FORMED IN A STATE WHICH HAD A PROPER STATUTORY/CONSTITUTIONAL MILITIA FOR WHICH ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF THE NON-STATUTORY "MILITIA" WERE ELIGIBLE.
It is a mistreatment of the subject to associate "extra legality" with lack of statutory authorization of official direction. You could say that about any assembly of people to collectively exercise their rights. But when you say it is "extra legal" for a bunch of people to, say, get together and form a political party, you suggest there is something sinister about it. Technically it may be "extra legal" but why describe it with such a term if your intent is not to delegitimize something in the public mind that deserves to be celebrated.
I urge you to ponder deeply on the points I am making here. They are not mere quibbles. Think about how your words might be twisted by clever adversaries, and avoid words that are susceptible to that.