A Soldier’s Response to LTC Robert Bateman

LTC Bateman,

Re: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bateman-on-guns-120313

USC Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 13 § 311 — Militia: composition and classes
(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.
USC Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 13 § 312 — Militia duty: exemptions

(a)The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
(1)The Vice President.
(2)The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(3)Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.
(4)Customhouse clerks.
(5)Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.
(6)Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.
(7)Pilots on navigable waters.
(8)Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.

(b)A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.

USC › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 15 › § 331
Whenever there is an insurrections in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.

USC › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 15 › § 332
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

USC › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 15 › § 333
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

(1)so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(2)opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

USC › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 15 › § 334
Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.

USC › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 18 › § 375

The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.

USC › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 18 › § 378
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit the authority of the executive branch in the use of military personnel or equipment for civilian law enforcement purposes beyond that provided by law before December 1, 1981.

A Well Regulated Militia
“A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined;
to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite:
And their safety and interest require that they should
promote such manufactories, as tend to render them
independent on others, for essential,
particularly for military supplies.”
—George Washington

First Annual Message to Congress (January 8, 1790)

The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded in 1630. Over 5,000 men, women, and children made the two-month voyage to the New World, leaving the relative comfort and safety of England behind in an effort to break free of religious intolerance, and to manage their communities the way they saw fit. In doing so, their actions tread new ground in the country that would become the United States of America. On13 December 13, 1636, the Massachusetts General Court in Salem, for the first time in the history of the North American continent, established that all able-bodied men between the ages of 16 and 60 were required to join the militia. The North, South, and East Regiments were established with this order. The decree excluded ministers and judges. Simply stated, citizen-soldiers who mustered for military training could be and would be called upon to fight when needed.

Self-sufficiency proved instrumental. In a new land, hiring mercenary fighters in the European tradition to ward off Indian attacks would be impossible. For one thing, the colonists had no money. Other foreign interests in the New World such as the French or Spanish, even if they were available for defensive purposes, did not share English views on religion and political matters. They would have seriously undermined the stability of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Governing and policing the settlement would have to be left to the colonists themselves. Therefore, the militia system of self-defense brought from England had the best chance of succeeding for the colonists. Soon after the establishment of the militia in Massachusetts, the entire New England region defended itself against the aggression of the Pequot nation. Other colonies such as Connecticut and Rhode Island mustered militia units to fight the Indian tribe, and succeeded in forcing the Pequots to capitulate in 1638. Ultimately, the militia enlisted from the many small villages proved a strong component in building confidence for the settlement as a whole.

During the Revolution the Continental Congress recognized the importance of having a body of men to reinforce the Continental, or Regular, Army and on July 18, 1775, recommended “that all able-bodied, effective men, between 16 and 50 years of age be formed into companies of militia.” They could be called out only with the consent of the State legislatures.

The Constitutional Convention open on 25 May 1787, at a time when informed opinion identified three threats to national security: civil insurrections like the one that had occurred in western Massachusetts during the previous year, Indian attacks aided and abetted by the British on the frontier, and, more remotely, invasion by European powers. The delegates in Philadelphia set about providing the new national government with means to face these three possible threats. The delegates had to consider two different approaches to the development of military forces. One, reflecting the experiences of the Continental Army, held that the nation needed a trained, full-time military force capable of defeating an organized enemy on the battlefield; the other emphasized the traditional role of the citizen-soldier militiaman defending his home and region during short-lived emergencies. Seeking as broad a consensus as possible, the Convention chose to employ elements of both. Even Elbridge Gerry, probably the most extreme ant centralist in attendance, did not object to the premise that the central government could establish a small peacetime military force. On 18 August 1787 the discussion shifted to the “Militia Clause” a much more emotional issue. In its totality, the Convention arrived at a very important set of decisions concerning military matters with relatively little disagreement. While the national government might employ the militia for the common defense, that authority was checked by the states, which retained authority to appoint their militia officers and to supervise the peacetime training of citizen-soldiers.

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution contains a series of “militia clauses,” vesting distinct authority and responsibilities in the federal government and the state governments. Article I, Section 8; Clause 15 provides that the Congress has three constitutional grounds for calling up the militia — “to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions.” All three standards appear to be applicable only to the Territory of the United States. Article I, Section 8; Clause 16 gives Congress the power “to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.” That same clause specifically reserves to the States the authority to establish a state-based militia, to appoint the officers and to train the militia according to the discipline prescribed by the Congress. As written, the clause seeks to limit federal power over State militias during peacetime.

A majority decided on 28 September 1787 to forward it to the states for ratification. The opponents, who came to be called the Ant federalists, tended to be inherently suspicious of any concentration of power. They feared a stronger national government because it was further removed from the people than the state governments and because of the potential they saw for abuse of power. Following the same logic, the Ant federalists also opposed the creation of a peacetime army and sought to limit the nation’s military to the existing state-controlled militias. Their arguments were couched in terms used a century earlier in England against the Stuarts and in the American Revolutionary era against Parliament. The last two states to ratify followed much later. North Carolina approved on 21 November 1789 after the First Congress had already introduced a bill of rights. Rhode Island, finally accepted the federal system on 29 May 1790.

Article I, Section 10 provides that no state, without the consent of the Congress, shall keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, or engage in war unless actually invaded. Be sure to see the Second Amendment for more about this. The first 10 Amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment qualified Article I, Section 10 by ensuring that the federal government could not disarm the state militias. One part of the Bill of Rights, insisted on by the anti-federalists, 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.”
The Second Amendment reference was quite specific: “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.” Eighteenth-century Americans understood the precise meaning of those few words and tied them directly to the basic militia clause in Article I of the Constitution. Creating a “well regulated” militia — that is, one with adequate organization, weapons, and training, uniform across the nation — ensured that, when mobilized, the militiamen could effectively carry out combat functions. This point had been fully articulated during the drafting of Article I. Mason and other advocates of the Second Amendment knew that during the last years of the Revolution many militia units had virtually disintegrated because they lacked sufficient arms. The amendment reinforced the original militia clause by stating this fact explicitly.

The Militia Act of 08 May 1792 expanded federal policy and clarified the role of the militia. It required all able bodied men aged 18 to 45 to serve, to be armed, to be equipped at their own expense and to participate in annual musters. The 1792 act established the idea of organizing these militia forces into standard divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions and companies, as directed by the State legislatures. In those earlier days reliance for national defense was placed on the citizen soldier but without adequate provision being made for his training or equipment.
The Militia Act of 1792 attempted to give additional clarification to the requirements and expectations of the militia:

“to enroll …every freeable-bodied white male citizen … and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack…”

Elbridge Gerry’s fear of militia neglect came to fruition within a generation at the outset of the War of 1812 when the various state militias performed in a manner ranging from ill-disciplined and near mutinous to well organized and heroic. Andrew Jackson’s victory over the British at New Orleans on January 8, 1815 confirmed what Americans wanted to believe, namely, that the nation could draw together a fighting force at the moment of need, not before, without elaborate and expensive pre-planning of a regular army and dependent upon the citizen soldier.
For the 111 years that the Militia Act of 1792 remained in effect, it defined the position of the militia in relation to the federal government. Concern over the militia’s new domestic role also led the States to reexamine their need for a well-equipped and trained militia, and between 1881 and 1892, every state revised the military code to provide for an organized force. Most changed the name of their militias to the National Guard, following New York’s example. The Dick Act of 1903 replaced the 1792 Militia Act and affirmed the National Guard as the Army’s primary organized reserve. The Dick Act, 1903 affirmed the National Guard as the primary organized reserve force. Between 1903 and the 1920′s, legislation was enacted that strengthened the Army National Guard as a component of the national defense force.

The US Supreme Court decided [5 to 4] June 26, 2008 in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER that “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms … The Ant federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved…”

Heller was wrongly decided. Writing in dissent, Justice Stevens said that “The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution…

“In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act, the first major federal firearms law. Sustaining an indictment under the Act, this Court held that, “[i]n 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.” Miller, 307 U. S., at 178. The view of the Amendment we took in Miller — that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons — is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.
No new evidence has surfaced…. supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to curtail the power of Congress to regulate civilian use or misuse of weapons. Indeed, a review of the drafting history of the Amendment demonstrates that its Framers rejected proposals that would have broadened its coverage to include such uses.

Support of any action that infringes on constitutionally protected rights is punishable under Title 18 U.S.C., Section 241.

From Norton Vs Shelby county: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

I am not of the mind to give up any of my freedoms afforded to me by the Constitution. Others may choose to, that is fine. But they must realize that they have that ability because there are good people with guns ready to do whatever is necessary to protect their rights whether they agree with it or not. That is true love and true patriotism. If there were not a long line of like minded people standing at the ready, I fear that many people would not have the ability to publicly profess their beliefs in the manner in which we do today. That to me is sad. As they say a freedom not exercised, is a freedom lost.

Banning guns will never solve the issue. There will never be any ‘gun buyback schemes” that will work. Criminals will never give them up willfully. There is only one thing these predators understand and that is power. I believe that we should give good honest law abiding people whatever tools necessary to defend their own lives and those of their families and loved ones.

“Gun free zones” must be abolished as they are a safe haven for predators to carry out their atrocious acts unchallenged.

Constitutionally speaking, the militia and the citizenry are synonymous.

They are one in the same, because the militia was and is made up of ALL able bodied men. As you know, the primary purpose for the 2nd amendment is to defend a member state and the citizens therein against an out of control, tyrannical federal government. Therefore the 2nd amendment is just as important now as it ever has been considering the direction our federal government is going.

As far as “assault weapons” are concerned, as long as those in power have them, so will I. As long as those who have the power and resolve to oppress me, I will be equally as armed as they are. Period.

An assault rifle has three distinct characteristics according to the United States military.
1. The firearm must be chambered to an intermediate cartridge.
2. The firearm must have a detachable box magazine.
3. The firearm must be capable of selective fire.

It must have all three to be an Assault Weapon and #3 is already an NFA item.

The United States of America is the greatest military power in the world. Our military capabilities far surpass those of any other nation on earth. The reality is: Take just two states of the union for this example we’ll choose Pennsylvania & Michigan; If only the portion of Michigan & Pennsylvania’s population which had hunting licenses took up arms which is roughly 1,005,000 & 1,299,372 people (total 2,304,372), you would have the LARGEST STANDING ARMY IN THE WORLD by over nearly 1 million bodies. That doesn’t include non-hunters who are armed, sport & competitive shooters, recreational shooters prior military and law enforcement in those states. Add people the other states and the number grows to nearly incomprehensible size.

This was part of the original thinking behind the 2nd amendment. Our system was designed to operate behind a system of checks and balances, and being equally armed as those who have the power is one of those checks and balances.

The 2nd amendment HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING. Think about it. Back then, people hunted for their food. It was the ONLY way to survive and feed one’s family. There were no grocery stores. Because hunting was a common and everyday activity, why in the world would the founders feel it necessary to guarantee the right to hunt in a bill of rights whose power is derived from God? They didn’t. Therefore, the primary purpose for the 2nd amendment is as I stated above.

The moral of the story here is:

We the People have loaned out power to you, the Government and ultimately have the ability to govern the Government through the constitutionally protected democratic process.

Federal Statute in 10 U.S.C. § 502
Enlistment oath:

“I, (YOUR NAME HERE), do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

See the Order?

0. solemnly swear(to God)
1. support and defend the Constitution
2. bear true faith and allegiance to the (same) Constitution
3. orders of the President of the United States
4. orders of the officers appointed over me
5. regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice
6. So help me God

As long as 3, 4 or 5 do not contradict 0, 1, 2 and 6.

Declaration of Orders I Will NOT Obey because they contradict 0, 1, 2 and 6.

Recognizing that I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and affirming that I am a guardian of the Republic, of the principles in our Declaration of Independence, and of the rights of our people, I affirm and declare the following:

1. I will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

2. I will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects — such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.

3. I will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.

4. I will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.

5. I will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

6. I will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. I will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

8. I will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. I will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.

9. I will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.

10. I will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

USC › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 241
Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Feel free to contact me and I will be more than happy to give you a primer on the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and what the term Freedom means.

Your article disgusts me; your intent and opinion are in direct violation of your oath and duties.
Do this country a favor and resign your commission Sir.

SSG Ryan Sexton
United States Army

Plugin by: PHP Freelancer
This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, Editorial and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
7 years ago

bateman’s army email is robert.l.bateman3.mil@mail.mil He is currently assigned in the United Kingdom and, if you can believe this, an infantry officer. Very poor excuse for an officer or a soldier period. His display of ignorance in regards to our constitution is amazing. I guess all those mandatory hope and change classes finally sunk in.

Ryan Sexton
7 years ago

from: Robert Bateman
to: Ryan Sexton
date: Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 9:12 AM
subject: RE: A Well Regulated Militia
mailed-by: hotmail.com


Can I get back to you on this? I am trying (as best I can) to respond to every single person who writes, but yours will take time to read and consider.

And I am 280 e-mails behind.

Bob Bateman

from: Ryan Sexton
to: Robert Bateman
date: Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 9:22 AM
subject: Re: A Well Regulated Militia
mailed-by: gmail.com

Yes Sir.

Ryan Sexton
7 years ago

I am a Soldier, a husband and a father. I currently have 8 children (hers, mine and ours) 4 boys and 4 girls. I have been serving in the United States Army for the past 15 years. I have been deployed multiple times and am in the middle of a Medical Board and am facing a medical discharge. I have had multiple TBI’s and suffer from PTSD. I have no retirement savings and have no idea how I am going to support my family. My Ex-wife filed for bankruptcy and left me holding a massive amount of debt, to include a Sallie Mae student loan in the total of $78k. I owe $750 a month in child support for three of my kids the ex-wife has and I never see, car payments, credit cards, rent, etc. No one in my family knows I am posting this. I have never asked for help in my life but I am at the point I don’t know what to do. Just trying to keep my family housed and fed once I am discharged. Thank you and may the good Lord bless you and yours.

Staff Sergeant Ryan E. Sexton
United States Army

Please share this link far and wide, it only takes a second and maybe someone out there with be able to help.


7 years ago

I am 64 and consider myself a member of the militia because I believe the true militia defends their beliefs. They also defend their neighbors in their community. More important they aid the country and the people of their community in what ever needs they legitimately have. These include; disaster relief, mayhem, public service, feeding of the ones in need and the defense of the country against foreign and domestic threats and I being a God fearing Christian that does His will. I being of sound mind and in fairly good shape will not list my name on any document because I don’t trust who may have access to it and those in power because of their corrupt morals. I will stand shoulder to shoulder with any person that is willing to help, fight for the cause of freedom and liberty, life, and happiness. I don’t know what this part about taking orders from this president and his cabinet is in so much as I don’t believe he is a legitimate office holder. You all that are better edumacated than I can argue and debate all you want. I believe the true spirit of a Patriot is in his heart. There fore the true militia member is what they believe to be a just cause.
My fore fathers stood on the Green in Lexington that day. They fought tyranny then and shared what they had with their community of like minded neighbors. Have we retreated enough yet?

Eric Balough
7 years ago

Brilliant analysis.

You display a true mastery of the oath you swore, and “Bob” would do well to learn some lessons from you.