About the author: Suzanne Olden

Suzanne Reisig Olden is a Catholic Christian, Conservative, married mother of two, who loves God, family and country in that order. She lives northwest of Baltimore, in Carroll County, Maryland. She graduated from Villa Julie College/Stevenson University with a BS in Paralegal Studies and works as a paralegal for a franchise company, specializing in franchise law and intellectual property. Originally from Baltimore, and after many moves, she came home to raise her son and daughter, now high school and college aged, in her home state. Suzanne has written for the online publication, The Beacon Bulletin.

View all articles by Suzanne Olden

  • PArevolutionary

    How come nobody brings up the fact that the militia was made up of civilians at the time of the Constitution and the militia was separate from the army???

    • http://clashdaily.com/author/SuzanneReisig/ Suzanne Olden

      Because it’s not taught in school anymore! Revisionist history is so convenient, don’t you think? smh

      • PArevolutionary

        Its all part of the scheme….just like leaving out God in the lives of our founding fathers lives and the development of our country and its/our laws

    • larryincamden

      Look at the Dick Act of 1902, it defines militia

  • $29077531

    The militia was created as need to defend the colonialist from the savage indian at the time prior to an organized government. Organized government created the army.
    The militia are the citizen soldiers that will keep this country free, provided the army has the sense to recognize that our government has been corrupted and is against the people!

    • PArevolutionary

      True….each state had its own militia made up of citizens who were every day Joes….the army a federal entity of paid enlisted soldiers,2 separate groups!!! So much history is lost thru state run education and liberal media bias…

      • larryincamden

        Actuall most towns had a militia, because the unorganized militia was defined in 1902, far after the colonial period, as all able bodied males between 18 and 45.

  • 2War Abn Vet

    Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The strongest reason for people to retain the right to
    keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny
    in government.”

    Others of the founders, incidentally, made similar statements. That is entirely
    understandable, since they had experienced oppressive government, and wanted to ensure their new government did not follow a similar pattern.

    We have never, since their time, been in greater danger from government tyranny.

    • gene613

      You are correct on a number of scores.We should remember that the Constitution was drafted by Madison while Jefferson was in Europe.When he returned he insisted on drafting the Bill of Rights to make clear both our protections and the limitations on the federal government.ALL the founding fathers were concerned about overreaching by the federal government.They are all spinning in their grave a lot more surely than the idiot pinwheels our government is now shoving down our throat.

  • larryincamden

    Actually the Superme Court has been derilict in its duties for decades. the 2nd Amendment 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.” and the Dick Act of 1902 defines the militia as being devided between the organized militia (National Guard and the unorganized militia (all able bodied males between 18 and 45) and also states that:
    All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
    This law has never been repealed and probably can not be repealed because the Constitution expressly forbids all ex post facto laws.

    • http://clashdaily.com/author/SuzanneReisig/ Suzanne Olden

      Its not up to SCOTUS to enforce existing laws, only to rule on their constitutionality. If you want it enforced, that’s up to the body that made it – Congress. And good luck with that!

      • larryincamden

        I am not suggesting that the Supreme Court do anything beyond properly uphold the Constitution and not allow it to be undermined when cases finally make its way to their hallowed halls.
        Which is its only function, not allowing Rights to be chipped away while finding rights that do not exist.
        Actually I believe that it is the responsibility of the administrative branch to inforce the laws created by the legislative branch.

        • http://clashdaily.com/author/SuzanneReisig/ Suzanne Olden

          And they did in this decision and the next one in 2010. I don’t always agree with their decisions. Roe v. Wade was crap, as was the recent Obamacare decision. And you are correct, what I should have said is that the 1902 Act should have provided for enforcement (given responsibilities and penalties, etc.) but yes, the administrative or executive branch enforce. Given our current Executive, I wouldn’t hold your breath!

          • larryincamden

            I only recently found out the name of the law that is the Dick Act, can you give me a link to the text of the law?
            I have asked my legislators but have gotten no answer.
            Having the text on hand would be important to fight this action by those trying to destroy the country.

          • http://clashdaily.com/author/SuzanneReisig/ Suzanne Olden

            Here’s what I found: The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill, H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all gun-control laws. Of course, SCOTUS would have to rule on that, but there is strong evidence it would be the case. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities: National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

            The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

            Here’s the link to the wording – starts under the heading of The Amended Militia Law. http://archive.org/stream/cu31924030724896#page/n13/mode/2up

            Here’s the link to download the entire book in pdf:


          • larryincamden

            aving now read this entire book, it does not really talk about the unorganized militia nor does it contain what you are refering to.

            I am still looking

          • http://clashdaily.com/author/SuzanneReisig/ Suzanne Olden

            Hmmm, I’ll look again as well.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bf-Caffrey/100000376924378 B.f. Caffrey

    I’ll go a few steps further that Suzanne here. The infamous Dred-Scott decision (that blacks were not citizens) claimed, in part, that it would entitle them to “…possess and carry arms wherever they went…” This indicates that in 1858 the right was openly exercised with people openly carrying firearms “wherever they went”. This right was exercised without much comment until the late 1800’s.

    Next, Diane Feinstein’s bill to ban semi-automatic weapons is and will be dead on arrival if it passes. It is flagrantly unconstitutional. The types of guns she wants to ban are the very ones that would be excellent for “militia” duty. Vermont is discussing a very interesting bill in its legislature – a fine for those who do not own firearms. They’re basing it the idea that these residents will have a more urgent need for services and are not prepared to fulfill their duties in the event of social upheaval.

    The Militia Act of 8 May 1792 requires all members of the militia to equip themselves with a good [rifle] and [24 rounds of] ammunition. That would amount to something like 8-15 minutes of battle with just what each man could bring. No doubt extra powder and ball would be brought up by riders from nearby. Translate that to modern times, that would be a rifle like an AR-15, 140 rounds (7 magazines, 1 in the rifle, 6 on the belt). But there is more.

    The act also authorized swords and “breast plates” for some officers, akin to modern body armor, handguns for artillery troops, required bayonets and a knapsack or pack. Best of all, it exempted one’s arms from being considered disposable property in lawsuits or bankruptcy claims. A man may be broke, but still armed to fulfill his duty. It is obvious that the founders intended the good citizens of America to be citizen-soldiers, hence “arms” includes such things as knives, bayonets, firearms, helmets, body armor, uniforms, packs, belts, boots, optics, night-vision and so on.

    Today’s National Guard is a “select militia”, governed and essentially controlled by the Federal Government, using Federal arms and paid with Federal funds for activities not related to an active call-up for duty. We, The People, are the “unorganized militia” except those enrolled in a State’s “organized militia”. The organized militia is directed by State-appointed officers and has a military-like structure. The unorganized militia consists of all other persons at least 18 years of age capable of carrying arms.

    I submit for your though the idea that any member of congress who votes to approve any bill that prohibits certain arms, mandates they be inoperative, a tax paid on existing arms, or other limitations has shown a willingness to violate their oath of office and should either be impeached or voted out of office as against the civil rights of Americans.

    • http://clashdaily.com/author/SuzanneReisig/ Suzanne Olden

      You are correct, and SCOTUS even pointed out the part about breastplates. They went into much more detail, much of which I had to cut out for brevity’s sake. The Court was clear that the Amendment was made to protect citizens from government, as well as to protect themselves from bandits, hunt and protect their crops. Not sure how the rest of the left gets to “its only for hunting” but whatever!

  • Mike11C

    mi·li·tia (m-lsh)n.

    1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than
    professional soldiers.

    2. A military force that is not part of a regular army
    and is subject to call for service in an emergency.

    3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible
    by law for military service.

    I will fight for our Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND domestic. May God have mercy on anyone who tries to take our rights from us because I will not.

    • David Weakland

      Agreed and I will do my best to arrange their meeting with their maker (as well as cover your back)! Oath Keeper since 1974.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Young/100001630951601 Mike Young

    Technically every civilian in America is still a part of the militia, whether they practice or not. The militia has never been disbanded or broken up, Every State still has their civilian militia and some members in some States practice monthly.

  • gypsy314

    We must demand all gun free zones laws be removed from the law books NOW. The gun free zones do nothing less then allow cowards into the school house to kill our children and us. So demand this law be removed NOW.

    • David Weakland

      Not to mention shopping malls/centers, theaters and any other places that place “Gun Free Zone” signs. I personally avoid doing business at these types of places as many of them refuse to accept responsibility for my safety while I am there. Fortunately some states/cities/municipalities are instituting laws making those types of places liable for their customers suffering in the advent of criminal acts.

      • gypsy314

        This is a good start and if our leaders fail to impeach Obama we all have no choice then to remove him.

  • i know

    The second Amendment did not give me the right to bare arms, It only enumerated the fact that personal protection of life and property was a God given right a inailable right not to be ifringed by law or restrictions (we now have over 2000 laws on the books reguarding gun restrictions) How well have they worked. Criminals are criminals because they do not obey the law there fore more laws are not the answer. We need to bring back morality and dececency and respect for human life. We also need to blame psychotropic drugs when there known side effects are the cause of so many of the freakouts we see in society. Look up the side effects of anti depressants and other psychotropic drugs.

    • http://clashdaily.com/author/SuzanneReisig/ Suzanne Olden

      Read it again, because it doesn’t give you the right to “bare” arms, but to bear arms. This decision, and the 2010 decision clarify that the Second Amendment gives every citizen that right. Other elements as you enumerate them are issues, but the Second Amendment certainly does give every citizen the right to keep and bear arms.

      • David Weakland

        No ma’am. It does not “give” citizens that “right”. It recognizes that right is God given and existed before the federal constitution. It guarantees us that right is protected from usurpation by the federal government.

        • http://clashdaily.com/author/SuzanneReisig/ Suzanne Olden

          Better said, and I agree. To be less non-specific as I was, however, was on purposes to represent to those (atheists) who don’t believe that God gave us rights, in their eyes, the Constitution does. Either way, it protects those rights, no matter who gave them to us, God or the Founding Fathers.

    • http://clashdaily.com/author/SuzanneReisig/ Suzanne Olden

      For the record, people who are depressed are much more likely to hurt themselves than other people, and if they are teens on anti-depressants, still much more likely to hurt themselves than others. Adults on anti-depressants are stopped from hurting anyone, especially themselves, because they take them. Anti-depressants are not psychotropic drugs, and none of the typical types of anti-depressants (tricyclics – Common side effects of tricyclics include dry mouth, constipation, bladder problems, sexual dysfunction, blurred vision, dizziness, drowsiness, and increased heart rate; MAOI’s – sharp increase in blood pressure that can lead to a stroke; or SSRI’s – sexual dysfunction, nausea, nervousness and insomnia, agitation, decreased sweating with increased body temperature) have side effects that cause people to go off the deep end and kill people. The agitation from SSRI’s is at worst not being able to sit still. Please get your facts right before lumping those suffering from depression with those who are suffering from other psychiatric problems and throwing the only lifeline many of those suffering from depression have under the bus.

  • BigUgly666

    The definition of “arms” in 1775 was WELL KNOWN AND ACCEPTED – “any military style weapon that can be fielded by a crew of three men, or fewer”

    • larryincamden

      Where does that definition come from?

  • GDC

    The 2nd Amendment makes “WE THE PEOPLE” the Supreme Court!!!

    • David Weakland

      As well as our Declaration of Independence!

  • gene613

    Your article leaves out the Supreme Court limiting the scope of its decisions in DC to DC because it is federal land.The distinction was made,presumably, because it was NOT addressing the scope of the right to bear arms in the 50 States.WE DONOT,THEREFORE, HAVE SETTLED LAW PROTECTING OWNERSHIP OF ANY TYPE FIREARM WE CHOOSE.

    • http://clashdaily.com/author/SuzanneReisig/ Suzanne Olden

      Actually, wrong again, Gene. This one discussed DC, but the Court never said in any part of the decision that it was specifically being applied only to Federal lands. However, even if I agreed with your premise, it was later shored up with the 2010 decision, which is the subject of my next article. So yes, it has been decided on a state and local level, and there really is no reason to shout.

      • http://clashdaily.com/author/SuzanneReisig/ Suzanne Olden

        I read the entire decision, word for word, including the dissents (which carry no weight) and no where in the decision does it speak to Fed vs. State, and the holding (or the decision) actually says: “In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 2816-2817, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.”
        Nothing in that holding says Fed vs. State, as does nothing in the discussion by the Justices rendering the majority opinion. They discuss the District in that it is a party to the litigation, not because of it being geographically Federal lands. So please, by all means, go through the case yourself and pinpoint where the Court limits it’s scope.
        As I said anyway, even if it had, which it didn’t, the 2010 McDonald v. Chicago case cleared that up completely.

  • Sodbust

    When one thinks back to what our founders meant,, is to have equal power or firearms as the govt to defend ourselves from them if needed.. So how can they now pick and ban this or that type now?

    Too many red flags for me to sleep well at night.. And the people who blow off the fear that our govt might turn against its people better go back and read some history, It happens not once in awhile but every time.


    • http://clashdaily.com/author/SuzanneReisig/ Suzanne Olden

      Not if you ask a liberal. They call it “crazy revisionist history” which is a laugh since libs are always revising history to suit their needs! SCOTUS discussed it very well, and only from English history. They didn’t even go into other areas of the world.

The latest from ClashDaily.com