Oaths

[rustythread]

I have been tangled up for the past couple of weeks in a verbal battle over gun control with other members of a trial lawyers' forum to which I belong. It is depressing being reminded that people who should know better, or at least should know how to find and read the law, can swallow and regurgitate lines about the PLCAA giving total immunity to firearms manufacturers.
Some expressed great surprise and dismay at being informed that if they are able-bodied males under the age of 45 years, they are by federal law members of the militia; this appeared to be somewhat daunting to the fellow who insisted that the Second Amendment protecrted only muzzle-loading muskets. I wished him luck in travelling by foot or horse to get on the plane to Bosnia or Donunnastan with his flintlock.

In the course of all this, I got to reflecting on the oaths taken in my state on admission to the bar. In Illinois all attorneys are sworn to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Illinois. I have sworn that same form of oath in Illinois as an assistant States Attorney, an appellate prosecutor, a judge, and a police officer.

In sharp contrast, when I enlisted in the US Army in 1964, my oath included my undertaking to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; to bear true faith and allegiance...

Neither form of oath was to support, or to support and defend, only those parts of the Constitution with which I agree. Neither oath bound me to support and defend any public officer, political party, or legislative majority. Regardless of any expirations of terms of office or service, I consider myself bound until I die by the oath I willingly took in 1964.

Sorry about the monologue. I had to get this off my chest, and I have been ...uh...discouraged ... from posts of this sourt on the lawyers' forum.

 

[Jessie]

I took that oath and feel the same.

 

[NFrameFred]

I feel your anguish. It is painfully clear that many of the representatives of the legal profession from the court clerks to the some of the Supreme Justices got their attitude about the law like a lot of folks do about their religion . . . I tell people they seem to think it's a pizza . . . they take what comes in the box and pick off the parts they don't personally like and toss it out.

 

[Eagle 477]

Perhaps they should find time to actually read the Constitution!!

Rob

 

[BB57]

I've also taken the same oath in military service, as well as upon entering police, state and federal service.

I take it seriously and I acknowledge that that oath never expires.

That said…the people I most often see doing something that violates the a constitution and or seek to restrict certain parts of the constitution to their own interests or interest groups are people who have sworn that same oath.

They often seem to be willfully ignorant of what that really means.

Frankly, I thank God on a daily basis that the senior officers in the military all fully understood that oath and the Constitution on 1-6-2021.

 

[two-bit cowboy]

Terrific "monologue"; no apologies needed!

I love the pizza analogy, too, Fred.

 

[Chubbo]

Formal Education

Rustythread, I can sympathize with you. I chose not to acquire a formal education, and thereby I feel qualified to form an unbiased opinion of folks that did. In my crude study of those ambitious folks, I've tried to find an uncomplicated, feasible description of the formal education process. Here's the coarse description of mine; Imagine formal education as a pump that pumps education into one ear, but forces an equal amount of commonsense/Logic, out of the other.

Respectfully; Chubbo

 

[dave1918a2]

To many an Oath is like the Constitution, something to read if They have the time, or the inclination. My copy in on My desk in front of Me.

 

[Absalom]

That said…the people I most often see doing something that violates the constitution and/or seek to restrict certain parts of the constitution to their own interests or interest groups are people who have sworn that same oath.

They often seem to be willfully ignorant of what that really means.
….

I don't believe the main issue is willfull ignorance.

I see the problem more as an implied assumption among certain folks that taking the oath (which I did too) qualifies and empowers you to decide what the Constitution means and act accordingly; it most certainly does not, neither does it confer the right to define just who those enemies, foreign and domestic, are.

Deciding those things is reserved for constitutionally elected or appointed authorities. Disagreeing does not free you from your oath's obligation.

 

[Rustyt1953]

I have taken three oaths/vows in my life.

In order of occurrence:

1: my enlistment.

2: my wedding.

3: to my Lord.

I still honor them.

 

[Grayfox]

I swore an oath in 1972 upon joining the Army. I don't recall anybody ever mentioning an expiration date.

Its been my observation that many people's loyalty to an oath they've taken is directly related to the amount of money involved.

 

[Jessie]

Right. I may misremember but I don't recall it saying "as long as you're in this service". The way I remember it there was no expiration date either unless I were to renounce it, and that ain't gonna happen.

 

[Drm50]

There are a lot of public officials and politicians that should be arrested immediately. They lied when taking the oath. That should be grounds for discharge at very least.

 

[Doug627]

Tell your attorney friends to read United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). The United States Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protected the rights of the people to possess military grade weapons in support of militias. The case was over a shotgun with barrels under 18". It made me laugh when the Court said there was no support for such firearms being used by the military. The first thought I had was the WWI trench fighting wherein soldiers used cutdown shotguns frequently. Here is the Wikipedia summary:

"Background
The case involved a criminal prosecution under the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA). Passed in response to public outcry over the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, the NFA requires certain types of firearms, such as fully automatic firearms and short-barrelled rifles and shotguns, to be registered with the Miscellaneous Tax Unit, which was later folded into what eventually became the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), then part of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the ancestor of today's Internal Revenue Service.[1] The $200 tax was to be paid at the time of registration and again if the firearm was ever sold.

The defendants Jack Miller and Frank Layton were indicted on charges of unlawfully and feloniously transporting in interstate commerce from Oklahoma to Arkansas an unregistered double barrel 12-gauge shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C.S. § 1132c et seq. ("Act"). At trial in federal district court, the defendants filed a demurrer to the indictment alleging that the Act was not a revenue measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the states and so was unconstitutional. Defendants further argued that the Act violated the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The district court held that the section of the Act that made it unlawful to transport an unregistered firearm in interstate commerce was unconstitutional as violative of the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment. The government took a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.

In reality, the district court judge was in favor of the gun control law and ruled the law unconstitutional because he knew that Miller, who was a known bank robber and had just testified against the rest of his gang in court, would have to go into hiding as soon as he was released. He knew that Miller would not pay a lawyer to argue the case at the Supreme Court and would simply disappear. Therefore, the government's appeal to the Supreme Court would surely be a victory because Miller and his attorney would not even be present at the argument.[2] [3]

On March 30, 1939, the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:

The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and so is within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas and so used it in interstate commerce.
The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230," was never used in any militia organization.
Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling.[4]

Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision had been rendered.[5]

Decision
On May 15, 1939, the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice McReynolds, decided on the National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act:

Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506,[1] and Narcotic Act cases. P. 307 U. S. 177. The conclusion was in the favor of the NFA.
Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178.
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

In addition, Justice McReynolds wrote:

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.[6]"

 

[llowry61]

Without the balance of power, the whole thing falls apart.

 

[rustythread]

Doug627,
Thanks for that extremely well written explanation of Miller!

 

[Beemerguy53]

I've taken the oath on a number of occasions over the years, and no, I've never noted an expiration date. Nor am I aware of any provision exempting me from supporting parts of the Constitution I might not agree with. Unfortunately, too many folks who've taken the oath treat the Constitution as a cafeteria menu...they pick and choose which parts of it they'll support, and pretend the rest of it doesn't exist.

I cannot abide hypocrisy, no matter who exhibits it, and in our society these days, it abounds.

 

[lkabug]

I took an oath at enlistment, it only expires when I expire.

 

[handejector]

In sharp contrast, when I enlisted in the US Army in 1964, my oath included my undertaking to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; to bear true faith and allegiance...

Neither form of oath was to support, or to support and defend, only those parts of the Constitution with which I agree. Neither oath bound me to support and defend any public officer, political party, or legislative majority. Regardless of any expirations of terms of office or service, I consider myself bound until I die by the oath I willingly took in 1964.

Hear, hear!
Well said.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

What have we here? A bunch of those Oath Keepers? Mouth breathing knuckle draggers clinging to their guns and bibles?

Sarcasm intended. Tongue firmly in cheek.

Good post! I have used the Miller case as an example in several discussions with gun control advocates over the years. I also like to point out the Militia Clause in the Constitution and Title 10 USC defining the militia of the United States. Of course, while doing so my knuckles drag on the ground and I breath through my mouth.