Federal Law 92 313: Fill & Download for Free

After the passage of public law 92-313 this is possible. The federal government rents buildings from Publicly Traded Real Estate Investment Trusts. The rent goes from the US treasury to the Real Estate Investment Trust. To become an owner in one of them, and collect regular rent from the US gov... call a stock broker. With this type of federal rent check you can start collecting very quickly.To find section 8 housing .........where the gov pays most or all of your rent is achieved by connecting with the county social service agency and can take a very long time to get.

Hey there Jeremy,This is a long answer, but please read it because it has the Supreme Court’s opinion in answer to your question.Amendment II was not intended for the State governors. The misunderstanding is a common misreading of the amendment because many don’t understand that the prefatory clause in relation to the operative clause. The Court sorts out the confusion in HELLER[1][1][1][1] pages 22–28.The amendment reads:Amendment II[2][2][2][2]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.Some reading this seem to think it deals exclusively with militia matters. This is not even close to correct. The amendment deals with two independent, though related, mattersA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free Statethe right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.MilitiaThe prefatory clause reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . . .”“Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster (“The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades . . . and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations”); The Federalist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison) (“near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands”); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (“[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms”).Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that “[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15–16).” Brief for Petitioners 12. Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise . . . Armies”; “to provide . . . a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all ablebodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a wellregulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).Security of a Free State.The phrase “security of a free state” meant “security of a free polity,” not security of each of the several States as the dissent below argued, see 478 F. 3d, at 405, and n. 10. Joseph Story wrote in his treatise on the Constitution that “the word ‘state’ is used in various senses [and in] its most enlarged sense, it means the people composing a particular nation or community.” 1 Story §208; see also 3 id., §1890 (in reference to the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause: “The militia is the natural defence of a free country”). It is true that the term “State” elsewhere in the Constitution refers to individual States, but the phrase “security of a free state” and close variations seem to have been terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a “‘free country’” or free polity. See Volokh, “Necessary to the Security of a Free State,” 83 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1, 5 (2007); see, e.g., 4 Blackstone 151 (1769); Brutus Essay III (Nov. 15, 1787), in The Essential Antifederalist 251, 253 (W. Allen & G. Lloyd eds., 2d ed. 2002). Moreover, the other instances of “state” in the Constitution are typically accompanied by modifiers making clear that the reference is to the several States—“each state,” “several states,” “any state,” “that state,” “particular states,” “one state,” “no state.” And the presence of the term “foreign state” in Article I and Article III shows that the word “state” did not have a single meaning in the Constitution. There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story §1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms?It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the ablebodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights. The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution. During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric. See, e.g., Letters from The Federal Farmer III (Oct. 10, 1787), in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 234, 242 (H. Storing ed. 1981). John Smilie, for example, worried not only that Congress’s “command of the militia” could be used to create a “select militia,” or to have “no militia at all,” but also, as a separate concern, that “[w]hen a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed.” 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 508–509 (M. Jensen ed. 1976) (hereinafter Documentary Hist.). Federalists responded that because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people. See, e.g., A Pennsylvanian III (Feb. 20, 1788), in The Origin of the Second Amendment 275, 276 (D. Young ed., 2d ed. 2001) (hereinafter Young); White, To the Citizens of Virginia, Feb. 22, 1788, in id., at 280, 281; A Citizen of America, (Oct. 10, 1787) in id., at 38, 40; Remarks on the Amendments to the federal Constitution, Nov. 7, 1788, in id., at 556. It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution. JUSTICE BREYER’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that selfdefense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself.Besides ignoring the historical reality that the Second Amendment was not intended to lay down a “novel principl[e]” but rather codified a right “inherited from our English ancestors,” Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281 (1897), petitioners’ interpretation does not even achieve the narrower purpose that prompted codification of the right. If, as they believe, the Second Amendment right is no more than the right to keep and use weapons as a member of an organized militia, see Brief for Petititioners 8—if, that is, the organized militia is the sole institu­tional beneficiary of the Second Amendment’s guarantee— it does not assure the existence of a “citizens’ militia” as a safeguard against tyranny. For Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia, which must include the authority to say who will belong to the organized force.17 That is why the first Militia Act’s requirement that only whites enroll caused States to amend their militia laws to exclude free blacks. See Siegel, The Federal Government’s Power to Enact Color-Conscious Laws, 92 Nw. U. L. Rev. 477, 521–525 (1998). Thus, if petitioners are correct, the Second Amendment protects citizens’ right to use a gun in an organization from which Congress has plenary authority to exclude them. It guarantees a select militia of the sort the Stuart kings found useful, but not the people’s militia that was the concern of the founding generation.Your answer is no, the second amendment was not intended to apply to the governors. The Constitution and the Supreme Court have spoken on this issue. In a related issue, MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS,[3][3][3][3] rules that HELLER[4][4][4][4] applies to the States as well as the District of Columbia.First Ending: CiaoPS: [5][5][5][5] 10 U.S. Code § 246 - 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.(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14, § 311; Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656; renumbered § 246, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, § 1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)Sort of Off TopicThere are two other amendments you may always want to keep in mind, even if they are not quite so famous.Amendment IX[6][6][6][6]The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.Amendment X[7][7][7][7]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.The 9th is important because it recognizes that just because the Constitution doesn’t mention a certain right, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. A good example is the right to Privacy.The 10th is very important because it tells you where the government of the We the People is located and it isn’t Washington DC. That is why actual gun control takes place in the States,[8][8][8][8] and not Washington DC. Federal laws[9][9][9][9] are insinuated into the States through the interstate commerce clause[10][10][10][10] of the Constitution.The People really have the laws they want in their States. The Federals essentially just do their own thing. But then that’s the way it was designed. The Federals handle external affairs, defense, and smooth the way(s) between the States. That is all they really do.Second Ending: Ciao.Footnotes[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf[2] The Bill of Rights: A Transcription[2] The Bill of Rights: A Transcription[2] The Bill of Rights: A Transcription[2] The Bill of Rights: A Transcription[3] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf[3] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf[3] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf[3] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf[4] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf[4] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf[4] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf[4] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf[5] 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes[5] 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes[5] 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes[5] 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes[6] The Bill of Rights: A Transcription[6] The Bill of Rights: A Transcription[6] The Bill of Rights: A Transcription[6] The Bill of Rights: A Transcription[7] The Bill of Rights: A Transcription[7] The Bill of Rights: A Transcription[7] The Bill of Rights: A Transcription[7] The Bill of Rights: A Transcription[8] State Gun Control Laws - FindLaw[8] State Gun Control Laws - FindLaw[8] State Gun Control Laws - FindLaw[8] State Gun Control Laws - FindLaw[9] 18 U.S. Code Chapter 44 - FIREARMS[9] 18 U.S. Code Chapter 44 - FIREARMS[9] 18 U.S. Code Chapter 44 - FIREARMS[9] 18 U.S. Code Chapter 44 - FIREARMS[10] The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription[10] The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription[10] The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription[10] The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

Hey there Opey,If I didn’t know better I’d just think you were a troll attempting to confuse an issue that has been settled by the US Supreme Court years ago. Then maybe you aren’t in the US, so maybe you just don’t know.Using Quora Search will help you in the future to avoid wasting your time.You don’t need to justify you right to bear arms. As you allude the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights, US Constitution, handles the issue:Amendment IIA 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. [1][1][1][1]It means: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.Isn’t that simple. How do we know this is certain?SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER[2][2][2][2]Held: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. Pp. 2–53.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. Pp. 2–22.The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation 2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Syllabus of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists 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. Pp. 22–28.The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.… (154 additional pages)MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS,[3][3][3][3]Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home. Chicago (hereinafter City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, have laws effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens. After Heller, petitioners filed this federal suit against the City, which was consolidated with two related actions, alleging that the City’s handgun ban has left them vulnerable to criminals. They sought a declaration that the ban and several related City ordinances violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Rejecting petitioners’ argument that the ordinances are unconstitutional, the court noted that the Seventh Circuit previously had upheld the constitutionality of a handgun ban, that Heller had explicitly refrained from opining on whether the Second Amendment applied to the States, and that the court had a duty to follow established Circuit precedent. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, relying on three 19th-century cases—United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535— which were decided in the wake of this Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36.Held: The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.So now you know the facts and can get onto justifying solutions to more relevant issues like ending enduring poverty and violence in the inner-cities, or ending DUI death and injuries that are 3 to 12 times greater[4][4][4][4] than gun death or injuries.[5][5][5][5]CiaoPS: you might be interested in this fun fact: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.[6][6][6][6]Footnotes[1] The Bill of Rights: A Transcription[1] The Bill of Rights: A Transcription[1] The Bill of Rights: A Transcription[1] The Bill of Rights: A Transcription[2] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf[2] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf[2] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf[2] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf[3] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf[3] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf[3] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf[3] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf[4] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812013[4] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812013[4] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812013[4] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812013[5] Past Summary Ledgers[5] Past Summary Ledgers[5] Past Summary Ledgers[5] Past Summary Ledgers[6] 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes[6] 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes[6] 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes[6] 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes