Militia Raid

[Tommygunn]

Of course the government prohibits people from organizing for the purpose of fighting the government; it would be folly for government to facilitate the activities of would-be rebels. But the Founders were not deterred by the fact that King George did not issue a "Weekly Practice for Revolution" decree.

The people's right to arms remains and, with it, the inherent right for people to spontaneously choose to band together to fight tyranny, just as the Founders did.

Yeah, this pretty much hits one what I've been thinking, having read how this thread has evolved. No govt. is going to announce you have the right to rebel -- every nutcake with some weird black helicopter theory would take advantage.
If you want to rebel....well, let's say that the "tyranny" better be real, and you STILL have to win! Just remember that history is only written by the winners -- the losers turn to dust and blow away in the wind of history....

 

[davet916]

Thanks for the welcome gc70.

The souce for jurisdiction is the US Constitution, article 1, section 8, two paragraphs before sec 9.

I fall back on this one when dealing with the US Forest Service and other Gummit agencies who assume ownership of our public lands and other things.

If they have purchased some of our public lands, who's money did they use? Hmmmmmmm!

If our government has sold some of our public lands to someone else, where is the deed showing the government owned it in the first place?


I'm pretty sure a Constitutional amendment is necessary to allow anything outside article 1 section 8. But, it seems all the Government agencies have to do is say the lie over and over and over til the people believe it. They may come to the states and pay lots of money to gain access to somewhere but that still doesn't make the lie truth. Marbury vs. Madison has a line in it that I paraphrase: "Any law repugnant to the Constitution is as if it never existed." I really like that and hold it dear to my heart. Our governments' encroachments on our rights and liberties are being done under the color of law. Feel free to fight back anytime. They seem to be like roaches. They don't like the light of truth.

The Bill of Rights says we have the right to be left alone as long as we leave others alone. Are we? Well, it seems we have a problem with nanny.

I'll do some looking around to find where it is said that laws written by the Fed concern only federal employees and not us.


Dave

 

[RNB65]

I think this thread gets the THR Thread of the Year award. It started with an article about a bunch of red neck country boys playing GI Joe in the woods (something about Bo and Luke with a machinegun and Daisy with a cannon). Then it evolved (devolved?) into... into... into... uh, words fail me.



p.s. What was that about Uncle Jesse with the F-22 Raptor hidden in the barn?

 

[Jeff White]

davet916 said;

I'll do some looking around to find where it is said that laws written by the Fed concern only federal employees and not us.

Do you really believe that everyone in federal prison was a government employee?

I know that you're new here, but please, do some basic research before you jump into a thread like this.....

Jeff

 

[Fosbery]

My 2p:

I have nothing against anyone who joins a militia. It may be that those who choose to do so tend to be nutcases but being in a militia does not automatically make you a nutcase.

If every US citizen was in a militia, I am sure the people would have a much better chance of overthrowing a tyrannical government than if no one was.

The man in question has not hurt, endangered or threatened anyone or otherwise done anything I would call criminal so no, I don't think he should go to jail.

He has the legal and moral right to own private property and arms, including cannons.

A cannon wold be of no real use against a tyrannical regime but neither is a Marin 60 or a Colt Vest Pocket. It's his money to spend, his private property, his choice.

 

[telomerase]

A cannon wold be of no real use against a tyrannical regime but neither is a Marin 60 or a Colt Vest Pocket.

There's quite a few dead Soviets in Afghanistan, a lot of them were killed with Enfields. A few SS men in Warsaw were killed with various vest pocket pistols.

It's not the easy way to do it against tanks and planes, of course... as far as the cannon goes, the British went to Lexington and Concord looking for cannon. (Marge Simpson voice) "Anyone who wants to take your cannon is not your friend"...

 

[protolith]

My $.02

Heres what I gather from the gist of the arguments here regarding what weapons would fall under the 2A and when and how a militia would apply.

RKBA- Everybody has the right to arms they need (squirrel gun, deer gun, turkey gun etc.) we can probally all agree those are covered. But RKBA goes much further when a "well regulated militia" comes into the picture.

When a militia is called to action, the people are to gather the arms they have available and anwser the call.

The meat of the 2A is that it is saying that the people should be able to keep the arms they would want to use to FIGHT A WAR. It should be considered that the call to arms would likely involve conflict in our own country, so I think it should fall short of the use of Nukes.

By the above logic the NFA and AWB were both unconstiutional. The NFA prohibits me from accessing affordable FA weapons that I might want to use to defend my country or the constitution that governs it.

 

[NickEllis]

Clarify...

Trying to glean some understanding from the two sides of the argument, I have two questions....

Jeff White/BR, how do you respond to Lucky's case that the main point of the militia did indeed seem to be that of as a check and balance again government tyranny, as perhaps best illustrated in Madison's (and an unlikely representative at that) statement

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops."

It appears to me as though this at least in some ways contradicts what Jeff White said in the statement:

"You may notice that there are several lines in this act which plainly state that one of the reasons the militia was to be called up was to put down an insurrection. This suggests that the founding fathers had no plans for the militia to be a check on the government. The militia existed to support the government. To be it's muscle."

How can you reaffirm your above statement in light of such clear statements to the contrary that at least in SOME way the militia was to be used as a check, at least against fed. govt. tyranny in the form of misuse of a standing army? It seems to me that you lean strongly on a one-sided view of militia, that is, that they are to strictly support the govt., while disregarding the statements which act as a counterballance to govt. tyranny.

On the other hand, Lucky, how do you get around the fact that at least in legal terms (avoiding any idealistic notions at this point) the militia seems tied inherently to the idea of state (as in, one of the 50) supervision? Many of the legal briefs cited above by White/BR, etc. makes at least some broader elected/democratically supervised authority necessary. The comments by Madison, at least in my view, do not appear aimed at authorizing small local "pockets of resistance" to anyone who would like to stand up and fight against something stuck in their craw.

Now, perhaps there remains a question as to the overarching (and idealistic) notion of jurisdiction, i.e., the precedence for the rights of the local authority over that of centralized govt. in the eyes of the Founders, and to what extent the locals may raise up and overrule their Tyranical broader authorities. Perhaps it is in this concept where the "new" concept of militia stems, that is, various groups willing and preparing if needed to overthrow tyrannical or unjust central authority, only now encompassing a definition of even a local State (as in, again, one of the 50) authorities. If an unjust local authority is exerting tyranical pressure on the local citizenry, logic might dictate that the citizenry has every right to rise up and resist. Regardless, this does not appear to be the intent of the Founders, who were more concerned with the ability of the Citizens of the various States to self-protect against the threat of a strong, centralized Federal system gone ary. There may be a point here which is valid, in the case of State govts. which are unwilling to establish that counterballance as laid out by the Founders, and therefore that role is (justly?) userped by the local citizenry in the form of the modern militia movement.

Not a clear post, I'm sorry, but perhaps y'all can respond. Its hard for me to see around the validity of what y'all are saying, with good data for each, but in many ways there seems to be some irreconcilable differences.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

BR, how do you respond to Lucky's case that the main point of the militia did indeed seem to be that of as a check and balance again government tyranny, as perhaps best illustrated in Madison's (and an unlikely representative at that) statement

Already made that distinction on page 4 of this thread.

 

[Lucky]

Bartholomew, how can you honestly read a paragraph stating that every able-bodied male age 17-45 is by definition part of the militia, and then turn around and state that they aren't? There are more than one type of militia, and the simple fact is that state governments do not have control over all of them.

"(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."


As an aside. Madison said quite clearly that the militia in question should choose its own officers from among its peers.


I understood your earlier posts that explained how drilling was equivalent to tactics today, and that is persuasive. But that does not apply to free citizens! It's like you are applying military uniform regulations to Safeway clerks.



Quote:
"I don't have the "right" to invite several combat vets over to my place to practice Infantry squad tactics in my 100 plus acres of woods."

"

You do not have a legal right that is protected by the Constitution to do this. The state government can prohibit this if it wants to because a very key concept in our nation's form of government is that the military powers are subordinate to the elected civil government.

"

Furthermore you have translated armed citizens into being military members, and then stated that the constitution was designed so that citizens would be subordinate to their government. I've always understood the exact opposite to be true.

 

[NickEllis]

Thanks, BR, I read that distinction and agree. How does Jeff White then say what he does, which unequivocably states that the militias were not to act as a check and ballance? I find that hard to accept.

 

[Lucky]

Gaiudo
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+10USC311

There is not just one militia, people peddling that theory are trying to obfuscate.

 

[WeedWhacker]

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.

I believe I see part of the problem: the federal gov't has no authority to control armed citizens nor citizen militias as there is no delegation of authority granting the federal gov't such power. However, since all other powers are reserved by the States or the people, the States do indeed seem to, at least on the surface, have the power to regulate/control/restrict/outlaw citizen militia groups.

Does anyone believe that the federal gov't has the legitimate power to control/regulate/restrict/outlaw citizen militias? I'm not seeing anyone claim that, not with any substantial logic or cites.

As for States being able to control/regulate/restrict/outlaw citizen militia groups... Jeff White and Bartholomew Roberts have made some very compelling arguments that support such a position. I don't have any evidence to support the idea that States do not have such power over citizen militias, though I'm very curious to see what other folks have.

 

[thexrayboy]

Lots of opinions being tossed about and thats OK. But when you start quoting
case law from court decisions such as Miller vs US and Prosser vs Illinois you might just want to remember another court case decision. The one where SCOTUS ruled that slavery was in fact legal. Either the courts are always right meaning slavery should still be allowed or the courts can be wrong.
Just like they could be wrong in Prosser vs Illinois or even something like
Kelo vs New London.

Just because a frat group in black robes decide something is legal might mean the government can use that law as it wishes. It does not mean it meets the sniff test when the constitution is used as the litmus tests.

As for the Second Amendment. It is the most simple and clearly written of all the principles laid out in the constitution. It does not get any clearer than the phrase " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Many people hide behind the first half saying it only applies to militias. Not
true. The right applies to "the people". Not some of the people, not the ones the states or the feds think it should apply to but all of them.

The founding fathers could have justified the right to bear arms with any phrase. They could have said "So that turkey hunting is more profitable, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
They could have said "So that marksmanship skills never be allowed to fade,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

They could have prefaced the sentence with any phrase they chose and the
force of it would not be changed. Why the right shall not be infringed may
be fun for some to debate. What is not open to debate is the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It does not
get any clearer than that. No qualifiers. No limitations. No need to decide which type of arms are ok and which is not.

 

[2ndamd]

What's wrong with their prayer?
It may not be my kind of prayer but, comeon the 1st amd protects them to practice their religion how they want.
Isn't this how we got Waco? We rushed to judgement too quickly and BAM! The Govt murders it's own citizens that the Govt was sworn to protect.
I do not think we need to rush to judgement on this poor fellow and his band of people. They can practice whatever they want.

You see this kind of judgement against these people is how tyranny begins. Calling these people a bunch a "redneck country boys playing GI Joe in the forrest" is exactly what is inherantly dangerous. The man is innocent until proven guilty and he deserves the same respect from the Govt as you, I, or even a politician. The Constitution was written for all of us, including the redneck country boy who has a different prayer than you do.

Let me ask you something. Do you know what the first law was passed in Germany that began to seperate the Jewis people from others in Germany?
It was a simple ordinance that said Jews could not swim at certain times in the public swimming pools.
You see. That is how oppression begins.

Be careful who you judge. You may be next.

 

[Jeff White]

First off, there aren't militias. There is one militia authorized in the United States Code. It is divided into the organized and unorganized militia. Every able bodied person from 17 to 45 who is not a member of the regular military or the organized militia is a member of the unorganized militia. That is the law.

It has been that way since the congress passed the first law pertaining to the militia in 1792. The Militia Act of 1792 clearly made the militia subservient to the elected government. It was never intended to be a check on that government.

The founding fathers, having just fought the war of independence and put down a rebellion (Shay's Rebellion) also passed the sedition act. They wanted the government that they formed to be able to retain power.

No government can exist for any time if the citizenry is divided into many armed camps. All of our military, the regular armed forces, the National Guard and reserve, the existing state militias and state guard units and the unorganized militia are subservient to the civilian leadership. This is deeply ingrained in our military culture. As well it should be, because the real power in any society rests with those who possess the most effective means of using force.

The federalist papers are not law. They are not part of the constitution. They are nothing more then the writings of the founding fathers when they were in the long process of writing the constitution. Yes, they are often referenced by the courts as an insight into original intent, but many of the things that were written in the federalist papers and the anti-federalist writings never made it into the constituion or the United States Code. Yet the same people whp wrote those documents were responsible for the Articles of Conferation, the Constitution and our early laws.

The militia was always intended to be the reserve force that defended the nation. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is the check on the government. The militia is not a check on the government. It is subservient to the elected government.

That is the beauty of the second amendment. By acknowledging that an armed populace is essential to defend the nation and forbidding the government from disarming the populace for that reason, it guaranteed that the people would always have the means to resist a tyrannical government.

The militias like the Arkansas militia that's the subject of this article and all of the other militias that sprang up in the 1990s are not the militia called for in the second amendment and defined in the US Code. In 28 states they are illegal organizations and only exist at the pleasure of their state governments. In those 28 states the members could be arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned under the existing state laws. They are already outlaws in those states.

Jeff

 

[2ndamd]

It sounds to me like we are trying to debate IF the guy broke the law. I can not defend this person as I do not have enough information to pronounce an aquittal or an adjudication.
But, the original poster made claim that this type of person is going to ruin it for the rest of us.
Really?
I guess I disagree with that statement.

Remember:"You can not seperate truth from rightousness."

 

[davet916]

I concede that I am no scholar. I am well read though and have formed many opinions on many subjects over the years. If I find something doesn't make sense, I look for an explanation and sort it out til it does. That's just the way I am.

As to the Constitution and Government, I have found lots of clarity in reading the works of Robert Greenslade. There is nothing pedantic and he presents his work in a simple, concise manner that is easy to understand. His website has many articles covering a lot of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation.

"Robert Greenslade focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by the Constitution."

His website is: http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/arc_greenslade.htm


Now, let me get this straight, Jeff White, you nail me for lacking research when I say I'm going to go do research? Is this some sort of liberal tactic? It makes little sense, so I'll just hang in here and see what I can find out.

Dave

 

[Jeff White]

I believe that the militia types do more to hurt RKBA in this country then even the street gangs with their drive bys.

We're in a culture war for the future of RKBA in this country. Those people who are not part of the gun culture are ultimately going to decide the issue for us. They will either fall for the anti's propaganda and create a groundswell of support for enough restrictive legislation to effectively end RKBA or we will marginalize ourselves to the point where RKBA and the shooting sports aren't self sustaining and it will die from lack of interest in a couple generations. Either way we lose.

The antis aren't going to be able to successfully stereotype us as gangbangers. the public is not going to accept the guy down the street who goes target shooting as the same type of criminal who shoots up a neighborhood over who gets to sell crack on the corner. But they will be able to stereotype us as the kind who sit in their basement and listen to Wagner on the stereo while we read Mein Kampf and day dream about ethnic cleansing. They will accept that we are angry white men who are waiting to get out our stockpiles of ammunition and shoot up the neighborhood because the rederal government just announced that they are going to store fingerprint data on people arrested for misdemeanors. They will accept that we secretly belong to an armed Christian Church like the group in this thread seems to be, and who would use our guns to make sure that everyone lived by our moral standards.

While most of these groups are harmless fringe elements who if left alone, we'd never hear about them, there are some who would commit robbery and other crimes to fund their end of the world as we know it goals.

We can talk among ourselves forever about the 2d Amendment being an absolute right. But in fact and ever since the first town prohibited the carrying of weapons the courts have upheld those laws. I don't see that ever changing. We have made great strides with the concealed carry movement. We saw the worthless assault weapons ban end. We've seen politicians run from publically advocating gun control. We're winning.

But all it's going to take is for one of these self styled militia groups to actually step out of line and Katie bar the door. The mainstream media will be doing documentaries about the militias, and the members they interview will scare the heck out of the average citizen. They'll show tape of the women in some of these groups living without rights like women live under sharia law. Comparisons will be made to the radical islamic movements and to the Taliban.

So I say yes, the militia movement is dangerous to RKBA.

Jeff

 

[2ndamd]

Jeff's post causes me to realize that I guess I look at things more philosophically.

As a former LEO it would have made my job easier (protect others) by NOT having the constraints that I had. But, just because it benefits me, does not make it right.

The 1st amd is every bit as important as the 2nd. In fact, I feel the 2nd protects the 1st.

So, allowing this person have his own set of prayers and mission statement for their "militia" is something I am willing to fight for.
Again I do not have the information necessary to determine his guilt of the alledged crimes.
But, allowing people to assemble is quite okay.
There is a THR member here that belongs to the Texas Shooting Association???? I may have the name wrong. What if we failed to allow this group of people to assemble.
I use to shoot IDPA matches. We were a group of people training to fight anything that came to harm us. Were we dangerous to our 2nd amd rights because some did not see the merit of this training?

There are many Democrats that believe that black rifles with folding/collaspable stocks that have a magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds is dangerous. Does that make it true? Do these perceptions make it right?

I just disagree with you if you feel a group of people that gather to train to protect their country from any tyrant are setting a bad example.

Didn't one of the founding fathers say something to the effect {A true patriot must be willing to defend his country from its own government}???

Remember that passive resistence is still an indignant stance in the goverment's eyes.

 

[Thin Black Line]

We're in a culture war for the future of RKBA in this country. Those people who are not part of the gun culture are ultimately going to decide the issue for us. They will either fall for the anti's propaganda and create a groundswell of support for enough restrictive legislation to effectively end RKBA or we will marginalize ourselves to the point where RKBA and the shooting sports aren't self sustaining and it will die from lack of interest in a couple generations. Either way we lose.

Quite frankly this is going to happen whether or not the gun culture has good
PR. BTW, Jeff, I was the one in Illinois who years back made the recommendation
that pro-RKBA demonstrators not wear camos. I'll concede that perceived image is
important, but the decisions that affect our RKBA are now taking place far higher
on the food chain than street level. Sure it's important as to what appears
on the nightly news on WCIA, but that's just so the ivory tower types at
UI can feel good about rubber stamping anti-2A decisions by the government.
An efficient government, even when it's not fair, knows how to hold the
intellectual elites in check.

When there's no individual RKBA, there is in essence no unorg'ed militia.
When there's no individual arms to bear, there is in practice no unorg'ed militia.

The entire bill of rights places limits on government power. The 2A is as much
a check on government tyranny as is the 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. The
Founding Fathers had just broken from a government of cruel excesses in
its use of power and their intention was NOT to form a new government that
was going to go down the road again anytime soon.

 

[pcosmar]

This thread has become a debate on the militia. The militia IS.!! End of debate.
You are missing the point. This is not about the right to have or be in a militia. It is about the RKBA. The man is chalenging the NFA and the BATFE. He wants to Fight in court. Instead of puting him down, He should be supported. Supply him ammo. Don't give aid and comfort to the enemy.
The NFA is unconstitutional, and thus illegal.
The BATFE is unconstitutional, and thus illegal.
Help him fight, don't fight him.

 

[Kentak]

Help him fight, don't fight him.

Sorry, he's not my choice of someone I want to carry the water for RKBA. Ultimately, this is going to turn out badly. He won't prevail in court, case law will be added against your interpretation, and you won't accept the results anyway.

K

 

[Molon Labe]

I believe that the militia types do more to hurt RKBA in this country then even the street gangs with their drive bys.

As I'm sure you're aware, Jeff, I'm in a militia. Are you saying I hurt the fight for the RKBA?

 

[sacp81170a]

Should you be allowed to own a thermo-nuclear weapon?

I haven't read every post in this thread in detail, so forgive me if someone has already made this point: NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS ARE CONTROLLED BY TREATY! They are therefore a red herring in the RKBA debate. Conventional weapons like jet aircraft, tanks and cannons are perfectly legal to own, provided you have the $$$ and conform to federal law in the acquisition of them.

Also, I am a LEO in Washington County, so I will inject a little behind the scenes knowledge into this discussion without going into too much detail. This was NOT a group of law abidin' Boy Scouts out in the woods playin' with their toys. Members of the group are documented to have made numerous threats against law enforcement officers if they were so much as pulled over for speeding. In my opinion, some of these guys were nut jobs, no matter how much they tried to wrap themselves in the Constitution. Tolerating their kind of nonsense and extremism does nothing to contribute to our fight in defense of our basic rights. People like this provide the anti's with a convenient whipping boy.

Flame away if you must, but unless you have a bit more knowledge than I do about these guys I wouldn't be so quick to defend them.