Need a new Militia Act

J

Jon_Roland

Inactive
Instead of always playing defense against new restrictions of the RKBA, we need to push for replacement of the last Militia Act with one that begins training our citizens from childhood in military, law enforcement, and disaster response skills. While most adults might resist having to report once a month for training without being paid, if we start with children and continue their training into adulthood we could restore the militia system intended by the Founders.

Granted, with anti-RKBA candidates at the top of the ticket of both major parties, this would not seem to be a promising time to advance such legislation (although Obama hinted at something that could be depicted as militia if done right). However, that is all the more reason to take the initiative to frame the issues at a different point, and begin educating the public on the importance of mobilizing the entire population to meet current threats from terrorism, crime, public corruption, and border intrusion.

A key provision would be recognition of elected local committees of safety that would govern militia units independently of other officials who have shown a neglect of their duties to maintain a strong militia system. See http://www.constitution.org/mil/cos/cos_setup.htm
 
The 18th Century called. They want their pipe dream back.

There are already ample opportunities for any citizen who wants to do so to get involved in the military, in law enforcement or disaster preparedness. It's called "enlist, apply, volunteer", and there are slots enough for everyone willing and able to serve.

Have YOU done any of these yet? I got a bet down on what your honest answer'll be.
 
John Kerry thought rich people should pay more taxes too. Yet he lived in a state that allowed for voluntary extra payment and, LO AND BEHOLD, he had never made a single extra payment. Funny how that works.
 
Jon,

I recommend you check outthis link. http://www.adl.org/mwd/faq1.asp

Here is a quote from one of the authors regarding the new militia movement:

As they look back to this utopian past, members of the new militia movement draw upon it for justification for what they do. Their actions are legal--indeed, worthy of estimation--because they merely continue this long (perceived) tradition. What they do is true to the spirit of the Founders, unlike the perverted or corrupted actions of government agencies like the FBI or the BATF. They are merely guardians of their own (and our) liberties.

And yet, when the rose-colored glasses are taken off, it appears that their claims to a political/philosophical inheritance are not particularly strong. Service in the historical militia was a burden rather than a right through much of its early history. As Radical Whig Ideology gained adherents in the colonies in the eighteenth century, many colonists became convinced that a strong militia did in fact guarantee liberty. But the strong militia they conceived of was not an anarchic, individually-based collection of arms-bearing volunteers, but rather the community in arms, hierarchical in nature, subservient to authority and to the law.

The Founding Fathers took this virtuous citizen militia and did something revolutionary with it, placing it (partially) in the hands of the federal government, in the hopes that the militia could better guarantee the security of the nation than could a strong standing army. Since then, the history of the militia has been one of federalism; that is, sharing power between the federal and state governments. Individuals composed the militia and owed military service to the community in the form of militia duty, but this was a burden rather than a right.

As the country grew more populous, its security could be guaranteed by forces smaller than the men provided by compulsory militia service; as a result, first the states then finally the federal government released from the burdens of service all those who chose not to participate. Henceforth, the militia would be voluntary, in what would become the National Guard.

What members of the new militia movement desire is the right to form voluntary militia units, but units without the responsibilities, duties, or safeguards by which the National Guard is governed. Though the history of the militia/National Guard in our country has largely been one of subservience to proper authorities, members of the new militia movement seek and/or claim to be answerable to no one but themselves. American society has traditionally looked askance at such groups, particularly when they are heavily armed.

The new militia movement thus has no claim to history, no claim to legality, and no claim to public support. That it is so alienated from the rest of society is both a cause of its radical opinions and a result of them. Perhaps it is enough to say that they have the tools for violence coupled with an ideology in which violence is not only permissable but if used for the right ends, admirable. That both these means and ends are not necessarily the ones desired by the majority of Americans hardly needs to be said; this is why the new militia movement is a fringe movement.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
JON, I suppose your ...

... heart is in the right place and maybe you could have framed your position a little better, but when I read your proposal, my initial thought was there is a country ninety miles south of us that already practices what you advocate;

Cuba
 
...at least until the mormons got a hold of it...
Click to expand...
:confused:

That made me laugh but I don't know what you are talking about. Explain please. No mormons controlling are local scouts. Are they an off-shoot of the Lumina-tee or what?:D
 
As it has been pointed out before, plenty of states have organized militias.

Ohio has one. You can see it's headquarters building on the right side of the road when you drive into Camp Perry, about 50 meters past the guard post where they check your ID. Ohio even has a volunteer Naval Militia...but those volunteers mostly patrol the waters behind the Perry backstop and make sure boaters don't wander into "the beaten zone".

Next time you go to CMP North for an M1 Garand or Carbine, have a look.
 
The Ohio Naval Militia is unarmed. In 2006, the Ohio Military Reserve numbered just six hundred members. Its primary purpose was to expand quickly to assist Ohioans in case of natural disasters or enemy attack. The state government now relied primarily upon the Ohio National Guard for the state's defense, as well as to assist in natural disasters and other types of emergencies.
http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=2088
Click to expand...

Here is more:
In the late twentieth century, private citizens in the state formed new types of military organizations. These units called themselves "militias" and were formed in a number other states as well as Ohio. These organizations said that they existed to defend individual states and the United States from attack. They also said that they would stand against federal and state government actions that the militia members believed to be unjust. Many militia members refused to abide by federal laws for various reasons. State and federal courts repeatedly ruled against many of the actions of these private militia units and their members
Click to expand...
 
National Guard not militia since 1933

In 1933 Congress adopted the dual enlistment system for the National Guard, so that every person who joins the National Guard also enlists in the military. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Forces . As military, they are on temporary duty when called up for state service.

Now any official or military person can function as militia under certain circumstances. If an off-duty soldier intervenes in a convenience store robbery and arrests the robber, he is functioning as a citizen, not as a soldier, and his arrest is civilian. Now if he had been on sentry duty at the time, and left his post, he would be subject to punishment under the UCMJ (although he might get off with a reprimand, depending on the situation).

I reiterate. "Militia" originally means "defense activity", and only secondarily those engaged in it. It is a fundamental mistake to use the term to mean only some kind of organization. Anyone engaged in activity defending the community is engaged in militia, and that activity is properly called just "militia" (not "the" militia or "a" militia). Militia is the duty that comes with the social compact that creates society, and pre-exists government. It exists under the unwritten constitution of society, which is sometimes referred to as "common law", and is not just court precedents. The authority for militia is a threat, either imminent or anticipatable.

For more on this see http://www.constitution.org/cs_defen.htm
 
Beware of quoting ADL

Although it appears the ADL was originally a righteous organization, it has fallen under the control of people whose agenda has little connection to truth, justice, or fidelity to the Constitution. Largely foreign-directed, it has managed to infiltrate and subvert our legal institutions in ways and to a degree that would have been the envy of the old Soviet Union. They regularly invent or magnify threats from domestic groups to justify their appeals for donations, and have found it convenient to lump together elements of the constitutional militia movement with irresponsible groups as some kind of looming threat to their gullible constituents. They conduct training seminars for federal and state judges to prejudice them against citizens seeking justice against official oppression, and have convinced many of them to treat pro se litigants as some kind of domestic threat in itself. If they had their way, only those under the control of those in power would have firearms or rights to them.

There is a fine line between legitimate advocacy of one's constituent interests, and subversion of constitutional values. Most of us took an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic". The ADL regularly crosses that line, and you need look no further to find a domestic enemy.
 
It is a fundamental mistake to use the term to mean only some kind of organization.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is what the COTUS says or the dictionary either. The militia IS an organization.

The authority for militia is a threat, either imminent or anticipatable.
Click to expand...

The authority for the militia is the COTUS and our elected government. It is not an entity unto itself. That is mob rule and vigilantism.
 
There is a fine line between legitimate advocacy of one's constituent interests, and subversion of constitutional values. Most of us took an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic". The ADL regularly crosses that line, and you need look no further to find a domestic enemy.
Click to expand...

How are they a domestic enemy? Can you name something they have done to justify that label or is this antisemitism? I think the article brings forth cogent points. I don't think your view of the militia is correct.
 
Militia pre-exists government

Militia is the term properly used to refer to the duties arising out of the social compact that creates society, before there is a government, much less a SCOTUS or elected officials. The right and duty of militia is recognized in our written Constitution of government, but does not originate with it. The meaning of "defense activity" goes all the way back to the ancient Romans. The Founders were Latin-literate, well aware of the ancient meanings of Latin terms, and generally used them correctly. See http://www.constitution.org/col/mil_inim.htm

The SCOTUS has been in substantial conflict with the Constitution as originally understood since 1819, although their deviation gets worse every year. Stare decisis is like a game of telephone, where errors are propagated from one generation to the next until the original meaning is largely lost. Part of the problem is that lawyers are also largely ignorant of the Constitution, so in choosing among the arguments made, the court often has no constitutional alternatives.

Elections are not constitutional amendments, nor is the Constitution or laws whatever corrupt or incompetent judges say they are. The Constitution was written and adopted to be enforced by every person, not just judges, using his own judgment about what it means and requires. That duty is inalienable -- it cannot be relinquished to judges, supervisors, or legal advisers. We are all on our own, and we had better get it right.

I took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, not some ignorant judge's opinion. If he gets it right, fine, but if he doesn't, his opinion is just another opinion, not worthy of respect or obedience. It is null and void, like any official act in conflict with the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
Evidence against the ADL

Some of this is discussed at the Wikipedia article on it.

As for anti-Semitism, it opposes and is opposed by the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), of which I am a long-time supporter. For the record, I am technically Jewish myself, although I do not self-identify as such. I accept the label of constitutionalist, and am considered by many scholars as a leading expert on the subject.

A good example of evidence of subversion is a tape of a seminar they conducted for the participants in the Conference for State Chief Justices in 1998, in which they can be seen clearly indoctrinating judges to subvert constitutional rights. What they did is grounds for impeachment and removal of every judge present. I need to see if someone has put the tape online. If not, I suppose I am going to need to dig out my copy and do so.
 
Last edited:
HMM.....

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
-Patrick Henry

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?
-Patrick Henry

We are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of Nature has placed in our power... the battle, sir, is not to the strong alone it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.
-Patrick Henry

The great object is that every man be armed.
-Patrick Henry

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!
-Patrick Henry

Stagger Lee:

The 18th Century called. They want their pipe dream back.

There are already ample opportunities for any citizen who wants to do so to get involved in the military, in law enforcement or disaster preparedness. It's called "enlist, apply, volunteer", and there are slots enough for everyone willing and able to serve.

Have YOU done any of these yet? I got a bet down on what your honest answer'll be.
Click to expand...

Of course I have. I've been in the Marine Corps for six years now. It's still a good idea for the citizens to be armed and capable of forming a fighting force to protect their personal liberties from whatever foes may come. Liberty is a flame which must be guarded jealously.

Oh yes, my signature should be part and parcel of this post as well...

Militia act? Do we need one? I don't figure... I figure we just shouldn't be limiting the rights of militias to exist, or to effectively maintain force comparable to the modern Infantry.
 
Slots enough?

There are already ample opportunities for any citizen who wants to do so to get involved in the military, in law enforcement or disaster preparedness. It's called "enlist, apply, volunteer", and there are slots enough for everyone willing and able to serve.
Click to expand...

The problem is that these official activities don't adequately address the threats we face. Consider a few:

1. Public corruption and abuse of power. None of those official activities are anything but complicit in the problem. See A Lawyer's View of the Justice System, Joseph H. Delaney.
2. Terrorist attacks. The threat of suitcase nukes or something similar is real, and there is no way government agencies can defend us without mobilizing the entire population, not as informers, but as enforcers.
3. Border security. The Minutemen Project has already brought this problem to the forefront.
4. Social disintegration. Militia was the traditional glue that held communities together and helped prepare people to be good citizens who didn't try to depend on nanny government for everything. See The Jury and Consensus Government in Mid-Eighteenth-Century America, William E. Nelson.
 
Last edited:
Undue influence on the courts

Although the report at http://www.ajs.org/prose/pro_sampson.asp would seem to be friendly to pro se litigants, behind the scenes were efforts by the ADL to oppress them. This might be taken as evidence that the ADL does not hold full sway over its intended targets, and that is so, but it an indication that they make such an effort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top