"The Citizen Militias of the United States, their ...." Topic

Ah, but segregation was PERFECTLY constitutional under Plessy. Then sixty years later it became UNCONSTITUTIONAL under Brown. Not a single word nor comma had changed, yet the Court (properly) reached the opposite conclusion. Do you see any PROBLEM with that?

I see problems with your legal analysis. Plessy was never overruled. It's not a normal practice for the SCOTUS to reverse its decisions based on political shifting in the Court.

You would agree, I suspect, that the US government was justified in breaking the legal system of segregation in the southern states?

It was justified because the Southern States were irrational. Plessy was bad law partly because the vote in the Southern States didn't accurately reflect everyone and Segregation was instituted by a minority and partly because "Separate but Equal" is a fiction when it comes to the sharing of overall resources.

More to the point, where was the actual use of Guns and Revolution to enforce Brown? Civil rights were mostly a peaceful movement by underdogs with the violence being used by those that resisted desegregation. Additionally, how did the South's guns and "revolution" during the Civil War work for them?

But what if the systematic violation of rights is at the national level, by the US government?

Still dont need a militia for that. I saw your thing about militia above; non government run militias aren't permitted. Sure, you can call yourself militia but as soon as you act like one, your goose, she is cooked. 2nd Amendment "enthusiasts" are often confused but for the moment, the law says the owning of guns and using of guns are two very different legal universes.

You give me the impression that the Federal Government is the bad guy and the States and unofficial, gun toting "militias" are the good guys but I mostly see evidence of the opposite.

Peaceful protests are more useful than armed, poorly trained maniacs running around enforcing their own views which result is often worse than the perceived government infraction itself.

What if elections are corrupted, and the mass media, so that the ballot box no longer avails as the means for the People to effect change? We have elections so we do not have civil war. As long as they are FREE elections with votes fairly counted.

Fortunately it's just the opposite but again, the Civil War was a great waste of time for the South and seems to have gotten everyone else what they wanted. Maybe guns as a solution and revolution as an answer for not getting everything one always wants is a short term good feeling and a long term loser.

The Soviet bloc was broken by peaceful means, I dont see any reason for unorganized, unsanctioned militia to right government wrongs. I see them more as unreasonable paranoids who think guns are an answer to having things their way no matter what.

I think that the intent of militia in law is not to harm the government or the people of the United States. I do not think that militia was ever intended to be heavily armed groups of people meeting in secret, plotting against the government, looking to harm elected officials.

Absolutely correct-well said.

Tort and Kevin, sorry, can't let you get away with that: you have said (Tort) and repeated (Kevin) what the intent of militia in law is NOT. Okay, good, the intent is also not to deliver the mail or to inspect meat or to walk dogs or a jillion other things.

But what IS the intent of militia in law? Give us a positive definition, please; what IS the legitimate purpose and function of the militia? "A well-regulated militia being . . . ."

The militia is We the People, armed. Do you accept that definition? You may or may not LIKE the idea, but that is irrelevant.

And I still want to know about all the examples I listed: gun clubs and reenactment groups and security teams and paint ball clubs and such: ARE they militia? They are private groups using weapons in organized fashion.

link

Florida would join 20+ other states who have state guards.

link

Who investigated you, and what was the outcome? Are you SURE that half your members are not really FBI informants? LOL

Here it is again: YouTube link

This church had armed security and the video shows AT LEAST five members of the congregation, described as "the security team", drawing weapons and converging on the shooter. Assuming that was a pre-planned response, are they a militia? Explain why or why not?

YouTube link

Another look at the church response.

Jim Butler, wow, so an investigation by someone official, not announced, results not made public, but intimidating potential participants. Tort, Kevin, do we see any PROBLEM with that?

Please stop using "militia" like "fascist" as a word empty of specific meaning and merely indicating that you do not like somebody.

Anybody with a gun you do not approve of becomes "right wing militia". Clear thinking requires clear definitions.

Is antifa a militia?

I have also said its time to take another look at militia. What is it intended to do now that we have the most powerful military in the world? The British are not coming, there is no one to call it out for, and its military value is unknown at best.
It is widely regarded as a vague threat to civil order, associated with various conspiracy theories, feared. Law enforcement is generally not happy with the idea of unannounced vigilantes appearing out of the blue to offer assistance. The job is hard enough. More guns and people getting killed is not a goal. More trained cops is a goal.

They are apparently heavily politized to certain points of view. The guys who wanted to kidnap and execute the governor of Michigan do not help the image. I do not know enough about them to say much more.

But the idea that you need a gun and a group to save you from the government does not make sense to me. I look around and I still have my freedoms, regulated to help ensure that we all have those freedoms. The USA works for me.

Re: the church and the unknown government official. The problem I see with that, doc, is – no evidence.

Is antifa a militia?

It's decentralized and whomever occasionally identifies with them dont seem to often use firearms, so no they are not militia.

The vast majority of the militia groups (Non State/Gov't sponsored militia) are right wing and anti-government. They need to be classed as terrorists. They are unnecessary and Americans dont need guns to protect their rights.

But are you open to these two possibilites as potentially real problems:

1) That governemnt fails at its basic task of providing law and order? ( Surely that is VISIBLY a reality in certain recent case.)

2) That government itself threatens fundamental liberties (as was true in Tennessee 1946).

If so, how does GOVERNMENT solve problems in circumstances when government IS the problem? Glad it works for you, but it has not worked for everyone, historically, and perhaps does not work for all, today.

Charge, thanks, that is at least the start of a definition, though not a correct one, I think.

But "they need to be classified as terrorists"? "And Americans don't need guns to protect their rights"?!!?

If the government is going to "classify" me as a terrorist, then I DO need guns to protect my rights. You just justified my paranoia.

And Tort, don't talk to me about militia being politicized when we have seen the politicalization of the FBI and the whole Justice Department.

Bill will probably nuke this when he sees it, but nothing like this Australian tyranny could happen here, because we are armed. Which the Aussies no longer are.

link

And were we NOT armed, it might well be happening here now. You think American politicians are less power-hungry than Australians?

Charge, thanks, that is at least the start of a definition, though not a correct one, I think.

Private militias are not part of the Second Amendment or the Militia Statute. When I say they arent part of that legal structure, I mean that they dont receive any license or immunity that the State sponsored militia gets. Thus, what you say is partly true, private militia can call themselves that, they can train, they can congregate and in some States they open carry. However, as soon as they commit any actions specifically and traditionally reserved to the police and the military, they receive no protections and are criminals.

If there ever is a domestic terrorism statute passed, I am certain it will be a going forward sort of law and members of private militia groups will have a period to de-associate.

doc, I think you are conflating protecting your private rights, which I approve of 100%, and requiring firearms to do so, which I do not approve of, and further, is neither sanctioned by the 2nd Amendment nor the US/State Governments.

The reason that many of these militia groups are viewed as anti-government or insurrectionist is that they represent their own interests as paramount. I think these natural rights you talk about apply across the board ( and are two-way streets) and not just to small groups who think they are entitled to exactly what they want "or else".

Someone mentioned bounty hunters earlier but that is such a limited exception recognized in only a very few states. Likewise your 1946 example is obscure.

Why not refer to the ACW, isn't that the greatest example of civil disobedience using violence?

But "they need to be classified as terrorists"? "And Americans don't need guns to protect their rights"?!!?

Just put the guns down and slowly back away…

If the government is going to "classify" me as a terrorist, then I DO need guns to protect my rights. You just justified my paranoia.

Really doc, I'm flattered.

"I know I am paranoid," mused the king, "but am I paranoid ENOUGH?"

Charge, yes, mostly agree. The militia (circa 1787) were government-sanctioned -- but also, yes, the population under arms. Opposite sides of the same coin.

But as I have indicated through many examples, between an individual right to keep and bear arms, and the "everybody is a member of the unorganized militia" (a legal fact, for males 17 to 50) there is the right of Americans to associate under arms for law-abiding purposes -- as with a church security team, or a Civil War reenacting unit.

I would agree that applying the word "militia" to private groups may be a stretch. But it is, as someone has said, complicated.

People do not generally carry military weapons in the Justice Department, and the rank and file is pretty non political. It's the appointees that have hurt it. What do you know specifically about the people there? And from what source? As I have suggested before, check your sources. Try to confirm their statements via other sources.

As for the FBI, there are thousands of people risking their lives there everyday who are not political. They deserve out thanks and our respect. In such a large force, there will be people who overstep on behalf of both political parties. But the mission stays the same and lives are saved, people protected. Do you not believe this?

Bad people do get control of various aspects of government, and the system may struggle to deal with it. but look around you….life is not too bad, I am guessing. You can thank our military, law enforcement, our safety networks, healthcare. But not militia.

Please. The FBI has been militarized since Waco and Ruby Ridge. Of course there must be thousands who are not political; but the top brass colluded to bring down a president they did not like. Come on, Tort, soon you will be talking about "mostly peaceful protests" with fires raging in the background. "Gentlemen may cry 'Peace, peace' but there is no peace." No, we are not to the Patrick Henry stage yet, but are surely heading in that direction.

I was not clear. in my mind the Marshals, FBI, DEA, etc. are the enforcement section of DOJ. I was talking about the other sections, which are numerous, and do not equate justice with carrying a weapon.

. Evidence regarding the relationship between the last AG and WH staff has not been made public due to claims of exec privilege. I know the data on the 2020 riots, not for discussion here. Again, look around.

We are talking about militia. I think there is no real need for them today, the negatives outweigh the positives. Their time has passed. If you are going to arttack people in government being a militia does not give you cover IMO. You may have weapons, carry them, but once you threaten, the rules change.

Oh, and you have the right to defend yourself, of course. But based on clear threats, not the words of media personalities.

I sense a nuke incoming here from Bill.

But the history of militia is of great interest to me, coming from Massachusetts. The troubles that led to Lexington green are complex. Here is where your thinking on militias becomes more compelling, I think. And yet, the view from both sides in that time still raises questions.

Actually the path to Lexington Green involved the militia in only a limited way; those organizing to resist the Intolerable Acts had to create the Minutemen to bypass the established militia, some of whose officers were suspected of not being down for the struggle. The action arm of the radicals was the Boston mobs (North End and South End, traditional rival gangs brought together by Sam Adams) organized as the Sons of Liberty. The Tea Party produced British over-reaction which discredited the moderates (most of the merchant establishment in Boston, other than John Hancock) which widened the radicals' influence (through the Committee of Correspondence system) to all of NE and ultimately the continent.

The militia WAS an engine of radicalism in Philadelphia and to an extent in NYC.

The Minutemen were a subset of the traditional militia, not a creation 'to by pass the established militia.'

For an excellent history of the militia in the United States, see Lawrence Cress's Citizens in Arms: The Army and Militia in American Society to the War of 1812.

Further, the relationship of the militia to the American military system is well-explained in 1794: America, Its Army, and the Birth of the Nation by Dave Palmer.

The recent 'militia movement' in the United States has nothing to do with the traditional militia and the defense of the nation. The 'modern' militia movement is "The militia movement is a relatively new right-wing extremist movement consisting of armed paramilitary groups, both formal and informal, with an anti-government, conspiracy-oriented ideology. Militia groups began to form not long after the deadly standoff at Waco, Texas, in 1993; by the spring of 1995, they had spread to almost every state. Many members of militia groups have been arrested since then, usually on weapons, explosives and conspiracy charges. Although the militia movement has declined in strength from its peak in early 1996, it remains an active movement, especially in the Midwest, and continues to cause a number of problems for law enforcement and the communities in which militia groups are active."

In short, it is a conspiracy-driven 'movement' and has nothing at all to do with defense and everything to do with anti-government 'activities' that are not in the best-interest of the American people of the US government.

link

For the minutemen, their origin and purpose, see Military Uniforms in American, Volume I, page 110. The Minutemen were not independent of the militia, but part of it, organized to be able to muster quickly in an emergency.

The first minutemen of the American Revolution were organized in Worcester county, Mass in September of 1774 when officials at the Worcester County Convention decided to weed out loyalists in the militia by requiring the resignation of all officers and then reconstituting the militia into seven regiments with new officers.

Officials then called for each regiment to put aside one-third of its regiment to form into new, special companies called minutemen. These men were expected to keep their arms and equipment with them at all times and be ready to march at a minute's warning.

A handful of other counties voluntarily adopted this policy and when the Massachusetts Provincial Congress met in Salem in October of 1774 it urged all counties to adopt the policy.

Recall that the pre-revolution militia officers had been appointed by the Royal governor. There were plenty of Loyalists scattered across the province; Gage had a very effective network of informants. The revolutionary government had to purge the militia before it would be politically reliable. The Minutemen were part of that process.

The Convention of Committees of Correspondence for Worcester County, being prompted by the American Political Society, again met in Worcester on 30 and 31 August and directed all militia officers to resign the commissions they had received in the King's name and for all field grade officers to publish their resignations in the Boston papers as a notice to General Gage. The Convention called for all militia companies in the towns to elect new officers and for those officers to meet by 10 October to select regimental officers. The Committee reviewed the military organizational structure in the County on 20 and 21 September and directed that a seventh regiment be raised. Ezekiel Wood of Uxbridge was instructed to oversee that effort and the selection of field officers for the new regiment. Initially, the 7th Worcester County Regiment of Foot was defined as encompassing the militia companies of Uxbridge, Northbridge, Mendon, Upton, and Douglas. It was subsequently designated the 3rd Regiment of Foot.

News of the military preparations in Worcester County was spread widely. The "Massachusetts Spy" in Boston, the "Essex Gazette" in Salem and the "Boston Post-Boy" and "Boston Gazette", both published in Boston, carried the Resolves of the county convention which detailed the reorganization of Worcester County militia forces. The four papers were distributed in numerous towns. Isaiah Thomas, publisher of the "Massachusetts Spy" added the subtitle "Oracle of Liberty" to the banner on his paper. Thomas left Boston with his printing presses and moved to Worcester to avoid a crackdown by General Gage. Benjamin Green of Uxbridge was named agent for subscriptions and advertisements in southern Worcester County.

On 6 and 7 September 1774, the Convention closed the court in Worcester, ordered all British-appointed judges and court officers to step down, appointed new judges and civil officials for the county, directed all militia officers to resign their British commissions and instructed the militia units to elect new officers, and ordered all British regular military units to leave the County. Militia units from 39 towns arrayed themselves on both sides of Main Street southward from the Court House with 156 men from Uxbridge stationed just south of the Court House. The judges and court officers were compelled to walk that gauntlet loudly reciting their resignations.

from link

The Massachusetts local histories and records of this time (late 1774) contain many specific examples of the reorganization of the old militia and the creation of the MM. The secondary works that Kevin cites generally do not (and cannot, for length) deal with many of the details of this or many other topics.

(I did my masters thesis on this, a long long time ago. "The Boston Committee of Correspondence and the Towns, 1772-1775", Rice University, 1973.)

Cool! I suspected you knew a lot about this, doc.

Maybe I missed something here. doc, do you believe that the unorganized militia clause in the militia statute allows privately organized militia?

Charge, definitions are key. The word "militia" has multiple meanings, and not always helpful ones. Americans are free to associate with one another in furtherance of any legal purpose, and may do so armed. I have given numerous examples like the church security team or a reenactment unit. I would not call such organizations militias, and I think they mostly do not call themselves militia either, but they are perfectly free to do so if they like.

Is the armed security of a billionaire, or a trillionaire corporation, a "militia"?

If a bunch of idiots (maybe including FBI informants engaging in entrapment) conspire to kidnap a governor, that is a crime (except see entrapment) whether those involved call themselves a "militia" or anything else. Surely the NAME, the WORD, is the least important part of it.

10 U.S. Code § 246 – Militia: composition and classes
U.S. Code

(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.)

However, states may form and regulate their own militias -- the state guards -- and those are governed by state laws.

Right now the Texas State Guard is the largest. But about half the states have a state guard.

tmd.texas.gov/state-guard
The Texas State Guard, along with the Texas Army National Guard and Texas Air National Guard, is one of the three military branches comprising the Texas Military Department. The Texas State Guard provides Texas with support in-state missions, from emergency and disaster response to border security and community service. No matter the need, the Texas State Guard stands ready to serve--they are "Texans Serving Texas."

The mission of the Texas State Guard (TXSG) is to provide mission-ready military forces to assist state and local authorities in times of state emergencies; to conduct homeland security and community service activities under the umbrella of Defense Support to Civil Authorities, and to augment the Texas Army National Guard and Texas Air National Guard as required.

Headquartered at Camp Mabry in Austin, Texas, the TXSG functions as an organized state militia under the authority of Title 32 of the U.S. Code and Chapter 437 of the Texas Government Code.

The Texas State Guard is organized into regional civil affairs brigades. They include military police units. They are not subject to US control, and the governor is their CinC. They are very active in emergencies.

doc I notice you are asking for the definition of militia but that may be too local of an examination due to sensitivity about how certain groups with certain ideological views are being singled out at the moment. I dont know that defining "militia" across the board can be fruitful on TMP.

Perhaps it is better to understand that the only true militia are the Fed/State sanctioned ones, that other groups can call themselves militia and behave a little bit like that but that whenever they plan or carry out actions reserved to the official militias, they will not have the same immunities, permissions and authorities and will invite scrutiny, restrictions and prosecutions.

I think the word is largely irrelevant. Americans possess individual rights of self-defense and of association. And of speech. If a gun club wants to call itself a militia its legal obligations do not change in one way or another.

But there ARE natural rights that apply when government is not present or is not doing its job. I cannot shoot the embezzler; I must bring legal charges against him. I CAN shoot the mugger, if no cop is there to protect me. The difference is that stolen money may be repaired, but no reparation is possible for my life. If (and when, now) government fails to protect the public, people WILL organize to protect themselves, and they have a natural right to do so. Whether you, or they, call such organization a "militia is irrelevant.

John Locke, "On Civil Government":
The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man's life puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the common-law of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

And thus, in the state of nature, one man comes by a power over another; but yet no absolute or arbitrary power, to use a criminal, when he has got him in his hands, according to the passionate heats, or boundless extravagancy of his own will; but only to retribute to him, so far as calm reason and conscience dictate, what is proportionate to his transgression, which is so much as may serve for reparation and restraint: for these two are the only reasons, why one man may lawfully do harm to another, which is that we call punishment. In transgressing the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men, for their mutual security; and so he becomes dangerous to mankind, the tye, which is to secure them from injury and violence, being slighted and broken by him. Which being a trespass against the whole species, and the peace and safety of it, provided for by the law of nature, every man upon this score, by the right he hath to preserve mankind in general, may restrain, or where it is necessary, destroy things noxious to them, and so may bring such evil on any one, who hath transgressed that law, as may make him repent the doing of it, and thereby deter him, and by his example others, from doing the like mischief. And in this case, and upon this ground, every man hath a right to punish the offender, and be executioner of the law of nature.

Of course we do not now live in a state of nature. But when government FAILS or is not present (as with the mugger in the empty parking lot) then we are effectively back in a state of nature and regain our natural right as Locke describes them.

ect. 17. And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away every thing else, that freedom being the foundation of all the rest; as he that, in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.

Sect. 18. This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.

I'm sorry doc are we talking about US law and militia groups or whatever scrap of whatever you want to present to justify whatever it is you think you can do in the name of natural rights? To me it sounds similar to the guy above who mentioned personal sovereignty which is French for "I get to do whatever I want whenever I want to whomever I want but no one else can do it to me."

He did, and they were impressed, and ruled him not guilty on all charges.

Charge, an individual is only "sovereign" in a state of nature, and we form government to get OUT of a state of nature, because such a state is bad. We the People are sovereign, but John McBride is not, UNLESS my life is directly threatened and our common superior the Law is not present AT THAT POINT to do its job and protect me. This is the basis of the law of self-defense, which is a corporate as well as an individual right.

But when government FAILS or is not present (as with the mugger in the empty parking lot) then we are effectively back in a state of nature and regain our natural right as Locke describes them.

This is important for minorities of all types, if they are being repressed by the majority, and if they are not being protected by the government.

Remember that the Mormons (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) were oppressed in Missouri and formed militias in an attempt to defend themselves, when the governor of the state ordered them to be driven from the state or exterminated.

And they had every natural right to do so.

By this same logic, we could also say that it's a good thing that the South had weapons so they could secede and defend themselves.

Natural rights are a two way street, it isnt just about ME, it's also about WE.