Thoughts

Jeff White said:

What part of Presser v Illinois is so hard to understand?

Click to expand...

Ah, what a fine patronizing comment from a moderator. Love the ALL-caps (I took a couple years off to be a full-time college student, so I guess you got me there).

We all get the possible legal ramifications of banding together and being tagged as a militia. Your cautionary statements would be well-taken, if you'd withheld the assumptions and considered the tone of your remarks.

And what you've failed to mention is that in modern times (Presser is a case from post-Civil War America) the courts still can't even agree what Presser really held. There's remains dissension about the ruling, and there have been several court cases since that spotlighted the conflict (believe one was even in Illinois, Jeff). In any case -- not all states have the same ridiculous statutes as Illinois (enacted statutes to control and regulate all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations except those which are authorized by the militia laws of the United States per Presser).

Jeff White, in his post #43, states it would be ill advised for citizens to gather firearms to protect themselves and property as those citizens did in the Northfield, MN and Coffeeville, KS fights. In the same post, Jeff acknowledged the distinction of forming a paramilitary group in preparation for an adverse scenario and a “bunch of citizens grabbing their guns” to defeat an armed gang bent on robbing their livelihoods. He made the assumption from present day criminal prosecutions citizens who react in this manner would probably be convicted. Moderator Kleanbore supported this notion in his post #47.

The moderators’ responses lead the reader to conclude organized militia armed resistance in any scenario is ill- advised and could be costly. On one hand militia status is illegal (which it is) and the other hand self defense is risky due to the certainty of criminal prosecution. The OP’s question was simple. What are honest, law abiding citizens to do in the face of aggression?

Moderator White offered the solution when he acknowledged in his post #75 that no one was saying citizens, as a collective, couldn’t protect themselves under riot conditions (last paragraph). The moderators’ conclusion is obvious. Don’t form a militia but respond to the threat as a collective in a spontaneous manner just like citizens have historically. Don’t wear uniforms and have a charter, rather just go out and target practice as friends (moderators legal conclusion post #7). I’m confident honest, law abiding communities would react within the parameters of the law, just as we have witnessed in past periods of civil unrest.

Old Dog said:

Of course, we all know that the required regimen of police training is absolutely necessary to ensure the safety and well-being of all the citizens.

Click to expand...

You missed my intent or I wasn't clear..
To clarify, my grandson is a deputy sheriff and when I worked, I would not have the time to complete the training he took; nor would I need or want it. Then, add a couple of months riding shotgun with a training officer.
To protect oneself, their family, property or assist their neighbors when in danger and adding common sense doesn't require learning traffic laws and a bunch of other regulations only pertinent to police..

Actually, my sarcasm wasn't directed toward you, rather to someone who seems to believe that only law enforcement is capable of defending our homes and neighborhoods.

Kleanbore said:

How about legitimate visitors? Are only the "known" cars okay with you?

Sounds like a great way to get shot. I'm not sure I have heard of anything as reckless.

Carrying out traffic stops is one of the most dangerous parts of a police officer's job.

Click to expand...

I think it would depend a lot on the area. LiveLife's area sounds generally peaceful. Where I live now such an approach would also be fine. Where I used to live you'd have to be crazy to do it.