Need a new Militia Act

[S832]

The ADL is full of allot of crazy people, so is the JPFO but that discussion is for another thread.

Regarding militias -> I think you should be able to play army in the woods, I even think you should be allowed to have "nerfed" APC's and chalk grenade launchers assuming you aren't actively planning an attempted over-throw of the government.

Basically I want people to admit they are part of a "militia" for entertainment, not because they are "righteous" Americans. That does not mean they will never, ever be useful but the odds that they will be are very small.

 

[Alex45ACP]

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.

Only if we get our foreign policy under control first. The absolute last thing we need to be doing right now is giving our government an unlimited supply of cannon fodder.

 

[Jon_Roland]

Militia not cannnon fodder

Only if we get our foreign policy under control first. The absolute last thing we need to be doing right now is giving our government an unlimited supply of cannon fodder.

It already has an unlimited supply of cannon fodder. It can revive the draft at any time.

On the other hand, if the local Selective Service Boards were made elective and repurposed to require all citizens, unless exempt for a limited number of good reasons, to meet with their neighbors regularly to prepare for anything that might threaten them, to train in the proper use of their weapons that they would be required to have, and to train in various law enforcement and disaster response skills, then we would build the sense of community that has been lost in a sea of anonymity, people charged with defending the Constitution would be encouraged to get to know it better, and people would be empowered to solve their own problems without always turning to government to do it for them.

Just imagine the effect on support for gun control legislation if everyone who now has no experience with firearms and is afraid of them were required to have at least one and learn how to use it. We would go from a fearful society to a society aware of its rights and responsibilities and prepared to defend them. We would go from a society of victims of crime to a society of crime fighters.

Part of all this would be to organize citizens into a large number of neighborhood grand juries empowered to investigate the operations of government, and to issue bills of indictment to any citizen, not just to a public prosecutor, to conduct a private criminal prosecutions of official wrongdoing. I also envision empowering such grand juries to decide whether an official was acting within his jurisdiction, and if not, authorizing it to remove that official's immunity from civil or criminal prosecution, including jury trials on a writ of quo warranto, preventing an official from engaging in unauthorized acts or from holding office for which he has exceeded its authority.

Suppose that all the kids who are now allowed to form criminal gangs were instead redirected into forming crimefighting militia units, that could drive out the drug dealers from their neighborhoods, reduce crime, and providing a restraint on abuses from the professional police that are now operating like an occupying army in many inner-city neighborhoods.

Imagine that suitcase nukes start taking out our cities, one every few weeks, and we have no defense except to mobilize the entire population to search every square inch of the country to try to find and defuse more of them. Imagine how much more effective that would be if people were already trained and ready, and already knew their neighbors and had begun to vet them as potential threats, or had engaged them into becoming part of the community in ways that might make them less of a threat.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

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

I didn't see anything in your link which would show the ADL to be a "domestic enemy" as you purport unless you consider those who disagree with you to be such. IN that case I guess I too would be such an enemy.

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.

What you propose here is nothing less than anarchy. each person does what is legal in his/her own eyes? Now you have broken the social compact you mentioned elsewhere and we're back to living short brutish lives. The government we formed in 1789 IS the social contract we live under today. The checks and balances ensure that no one person or group can grab absolute power. However, within that governmental framework the courts, executive branches and legislatures decide what laws are passed and enforced and whether a law infringes upon the rights of an individual. Our duty as citizens is to participate and VOTE. That is where we exercise our power. Not thru a group that is armed and answers to only themselves.

Just imagine the effect on support for gun control legislation if everyone who now has no experience with firearms and is afraid of them were required to have at least one and learn how to use it. We would go from a fearful society to a society aware of its rights and responsibilities and prepared to defend them. We would go from a society of victims of crime to a society of crime fighters.

So, you are going to force people to own and train with firearms against their will and possible their own faith? Isn't that facism?

Jon, I think your ideas are extreme and what you propose might not help but rather harm freedom.

 

[RDak]

Roland, you're going a little too far here IMHO.

The three branches of government do provide us with freedom for the most part IMHO.

I know there is corruption but we can't do away with all our institutions.

Plus, like TG says, we can't force people to own firearms. I'd be a hypocrite if I required that.

I love firearms and just want those who don't like firearms to respect my 2nd Amendment rights. But if an individual doesn't want to own a firearm - fine by me. Just don't say I can't own one.

As to militias, I have no problem with some sort of well regulated militia like you opine. I just don't think it should be forced on everyone unless there is an emergency.

 

[Al Norris]

There has always (always = modern times - mid 1970's and onwards) been a misconception of what the Constitutional Militia was and is. I hope to clear that up with this post.

First things first: The National Guard is not a State Militia. It hasn't been since the Federal Government co-opted the State Militias (those that called themselves, The National Guard - which by that time, was all of them) starting as early as the Militia Act of 1892. The National Defense Act of 1916, further codified that the Congress could call up the "Guard" in any national emergency. The National Guard Mobilization Act of 1932 separated the State Defense Forces (SDF - the Militia) from the National Guard and codified that the SDF may not be called up en mass by the Federal Government. Those that wished to remain in the National Guard instead of the SDF were enrolled into the US Army. The National Defense (Militia) Act of 1956 further modified the dual role of the Guard, to be placed in State service until such a time that they were called into service with the U.S. Army.

Secondly: The State Defense Forces are in fact the Militia that is covered under Art I Section 8 clauses 15 and 16 of the Constitution:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

You will kindly take notice of the only three reasons the Congress can call forth the Militia, as listed above in clause 15. You will also note who appoints the Officer corps of the Militias.

State Guards or SDF, are under full control of the (individual) State(s) and share no control with the Federal Government, unless or until they are explicitly called forth for one of the three reasons listed above.

There are many States that still preserve their SDF. Others have it listed within their State Constitutions but they are not active (Idaho falls in this category).

In the early history of the Guard (starting from 1633), it was villages and towns that directly appointed their officers and times of practice. It was the Chief Magistrate (the CLEO of that time) of that locale that called them forth in time of need (the earliest form of a posse). That method was being discontinued during the Revolutionary War, in favor of full State control. After the Revolution up to shortly after the Constitution was ratified, nearly all State Forces were under State control.

That is the history of the Militia in the U.S.

Finally: Any group of folks, participating in "Militia" activity (so-called), without the full co-operation and authorization of the State, is just a group of people - play acting at best. It is not in any shape or form, the "Militia" as denoted in history or contemplated in the U.S. Constitution.

Therefore, under Federal law, there are the Active Militia, the National Guard and the unorganized Militia (the rest of us).

Under Federal Case Law, the National Guard shares an active status with State Defense Forces, but SDF's may not be pressed into service outside the national boarders.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Nicely said, Al.

It's ironic and sad that after all the work that our founders and so many others put into creating a government and making this country great that we now seem to have come full circle and a bunch of people who daily enjoy the fruits of those people's efforts and who generally give nothing back now claim that they need to form their own private militias not to suppress insurrections against the rest of us but to foment them.

 

[Jon_Roland]

Citizens can be compelled to have firearms

[Excerpt from] The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.

An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

Modernizing this Act would mean substituting weapons in common use by the military today, probably at least a select-fire rifle. That is what is required of the modern Swiss militia. Other than such modernization, I am being no more extreme than were the Founders of this country, when they adopted the first legislation implementing the militia clauses of the U.S. Constitution. It works for the Swiss, and there is no reason it can't work for the United States.

Now, there were provisions for exempting persons who had religious objections, but they had to contribute money or goods of comparable value to support militia.

 

[Al Norris]

Yes Jon. I'm quite familar with the Militia Act of 1792.

Did you read my prior posting? That act has been supersceded by several other congressional acts.

Quite frankly, if you wish to do something about the State Militias, try presuading your State Government to update it's own laws. Quit looking for a Federal protection/decision.

The very first place one should look for any improvements in such laws, is at the local or State Level. Always seeking some Federal solution does nothing more than to increase Federal power. Is this what you want?

 

[Stagger Lee]

Al scores again. Why is it that the very people who always cry about the feds infringing on state's rights are the ones who keep turning around and demanding that the feds kick the states into line when THEY want something?

And Jon, Switzerland is a nice place. Last I checked, there's nothing to prevent you from moving there if you really dislike our government and admire theirs so much.

Although once you get there, you'll find that you're taxed a lot more to cover many programs that you would undoubtedly decry as "socialist". And if you break the law there, expect a harsh and certain punishment, unlike here. But hey--you'd get that select-fire rifle in your closet, wouldn't you...just as soon as you completed your mandatory national service requirements.

Drop us all a card when you get settled in over there.

 

[zukiphile]

Finally: Any group of folks, participating in "Militia" activity (so-called), without the full co-operation and authorization of the State, is just a group of people - play acting at best. It is not in any shape or form, the "Militia" as denoted in history or contemplated in the U.S. Constitution.

Therefore, under Federal law, there are the Active Militia, the National Guard and the unorganized Militia (the rest of us).

Presumably, members of the unorganised militia do not lose their status as a subset of the Militia even when they do silly things, yes?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Therefore, under Federal law, there are the Active Militia, the National Guard and the unorganized Militia (the rest of us).

Great point and they ALL operate under legal governmental authority. That is the problem with the new militias. They report to no one. The unorganized militia is nothing but a pool of people who MAY serve in the organized and state militia if called. They have no duties, rights or responsibilities under law.

 

[copenhagen]

tngent:

That is the problem with the new militias. They report to no one......They have no duties, rights or responsibilities under law.

..Heaven forbid that the people are free to do as they please! The audacity!

 

[Al Norris]

..Heaven forbid that the people are free to do as they please! The audacity!

Look, I have no problem with people gathering together and increasing their military preparedness. It's one of the things the founders thought was necessary, but couldn't imagine how they could implement it, on a local, let alone State or national level. The problem I have is when these same people claim a relationship (State Militia) that doesn't actually exist.

If I and some friends, organize the Rupert Militia, is the City of Rupert our controlling interest? Do we operate under the jurisdiction of the City? Does the State have any say in this? No? Then we aren't a real militia. At least, not the kind our founders would recognize.

I have a copy of the 2003 National Militia Standards. Heard about that? I assume there is an updated version, but let's work with what I have.

This document was authored by quite a few very serious individuals who thought they were working for the good of the US. It actually, created quite a split between various militia factions. Some thought it too strict. Others, not strict enough. Some didn't like that they had to include atheists as members.... The reasons were many and varied. Yet, under the same Constitution that these men proclaimed to uphold and cherish, whose authority was given to actually implement such standards? Standards that already exist?

Everyone of these guys, refused to consider what the Congress or their State Legislatures had already done. Yet they held that the Constitution was supreme....

Do you begin to see where this is all heading?

To a man, they refused to admit that everything they wanted to do, was already done. They only had to hold to current constitutional authority. That they refused to do.

Their hearts and ideals were in the right place, they just refused to submit to lawful authority over them. Thus, they are rogue units (if they are anything), by their own definitions. This they also refused to acknowledge.

As I said earlier, I don't have a problem with the militia movement, per se. I have a problem with the implementation.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

..Heaven forbid that the people are free to do as they please! The audacity!

Al makes some great points. Although I am not a fan of the militia movements, I have news for copenhagen, the price of living in a civilized society means you don't get to do whatever you please. We are a nation of laws not men. Think about what that means.

As to these new militias here is a quote about organizing one:

If there are no laws forbidding such an organization, then you can organize. Remembering that if you want your "unorganized militia"to be true to the definition of those subject/eligible for the militia in 32 USCS 311, you must exclude women from your organized "unorganized militia."

But the result of your organization will not be a militia unit. The result will be a unauthorized voluntary paramilitary organization.

Most states have laws prohibiting or regulating these groups. These laws have been found constitutionally valid whenever tested. The passage of these laws by most states shows some common agreement that these groups are not good.

 

[Jon_Roland]

It is not correct that

everything they wanted to do, was already done.

There are parts of the framework that have been done, but the dereliction in implementation is due to officials rather than militia activists.

To understand the problem, consider a scenario in which the laws and appropriations are all in place to conduct an official election of a new set of officials, but the old officials just decide not to conduct the election. Would-be voters show up on election day and find there are no polling places open, no election officials appointed, no ballots printed or voting machines available, no one to count any votes, or declare any winners. Local government has just shut its doors and everyone gone on vacation. What do the voters do in that situation? Just acquiesce in letting the old officials stay in their offices? Do without officials? No, their duty at that point would be to follow the law and conduct the election as volunteers, doing everything they could to bootstrap local government back to where it was supposed to be. Would an election conducted by unpaid volunteer citizens without official sanction be lawful, and the officials thus elected be authorized to assume the offices to which they had been elected? The answer is yes. What matters in law is not so much who does it as that it is done in accordance with law. The authority for their actions comes from the law, not from officials, and if, through the dereliction of officials, they have to implement the law without official participation or sanction, then that's what they have to do.

The Framers provided in the Constitution that Congress is supposed to set national militia standards and practices, and the state legislatures were to keep militia active and organized, with officers either appointed by elected officials, or elected at the local level, such as elected unit commanders or committees of safety. By default the sheriff was supposed to be militia commander for his county, and the constable militia commander for his ward or precinct. The legal framework for all this still exists, but the officials are derelict in implementing it.

Delegated powers are not, contrary to the opinion in Gibbons v. Ogden, "plenary" within their "sphere". Powers must always be exercised in a way that reasonably serves a legitimate public purpose. Congress has pre-emptive power to regulate the time, place, and manner of congressional elections (but not the place of senatorial elections). Would it be within its authority to require such elections to be held within a 1-nanosecond timeframe, or in polling places on the moon, or in a way that would disclose who voted for whom to officials waiting to punish people who vote the wrong way? Of course not. Such a power may only be constitutionally exercised in the direction of making elections more convenient, orderly, efficient, fair, and accurate.

The same principle applies to regulation of militia. Militia may be regulated, but only in the direction of making them more effective in defending their community, and that means not neglecting to regulate them at all or allowing them to become inactive by dereliction. Furthermore, militia means everyone not exempt, not some select militia that may represent a faction in government, perhaps oppressive of the rights of the people. See Are Cops Constitutional?, Roger Roots, Seton Hall Constitutional L.J. 2001, 685.

Militia Standards of 2003 are at http://www.awrm.org/nms.htm

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Jon,

There are parts of the framework that have been done, but the dereliction in implementation is due to officials rather than militia activists...The Framers provided in the Constitution that Congress is supposed to set national militia standards and practices, and the state legislatures were to keep militia active and organized,

I am not sure I read that that bolded part in the COTUS. Maybe I missed it.

Here is a quote as to why the militia may have declined:

The militia declined because the arguments against militia service won out over those that suggested the advantages of it. There were two main schools of opposition to the militia. Many argued against the militia on moral grounds: it promoted drunkenness and gambling, among other vices. Pacifists (belonging to a strong peace movement in the early nineteenth century) argued that the militia promoted militarism. The other school of opposition, and probably the stronger one, was opposed to the militia on socioeconomic grounds. These people were angry that the rich could always get out of militia service. It was a common lament that "the poor had to pay in order to protect the property of the rich, who paid nothing." Against these arguments, supporters of the militia tried to portray the militia as a good institution: a) protector against tyranny, b) defense against foreign invasion, and increasingly, c) defense against mobs and riots. They also tried to reform the militia, to make it more "moral" and less inequitable. However, the rationales for militia service were not convincing; it was pretty clear that the federal government was not about to become "tyrannical" while the standing army seemed a better defense against (unlikely) foreign invasion than the unreliable militias. The mob and riot argument was more successful, but the compulsory militia was not needed for this; a volunteer militia could serve just as well. On the reform front, the reformers basically failed in their endeavors. As a result, people grew more and more unwilling to participate in the militia system, thus creating its 'decline.' The first Congressional definition of the militia started out as all free, white able-bodied males from 18-45, except those exempted. Congress gave states the power to exempt anybody they wanted, and states used the exemption power extremely liberally. This resulted in huge segments of society being exempted from militia duty. Indeed, some states began early on to exempt entire age groups from militia duty. For instance, Massachusetts soon exempted everybody aged 41-45. Then they exempted people aged 35-45. Eventually, it got down to the point where only 21-30 year olds had to serve (if they were not exempted in other ways (such as serving in volunteer fire companies or any of the other exemptions).

Mark Pitcavage, An Equitable Burden: The Decline of the State Militias, 1783-1858.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Jon,
I read the article you posted about LEOs. And the standards of a militia. On the LEOs I must say that even though professional police were not really around in 1790, neither was a lot of things that are in place in our government today. Like a large standing army and a supreme court with judicial review.
The problem I always have with so called originalists is that they take history out of context and try to apply it to current time. Certain broad principles of liberty from that time do apply today but this is not 1790 and so the application of those principles might be different. My feeling is that the Founding Fathers really dreamed of a time when these instituitions they created would mature to full flower.

The purpose I believe the militia was around then was primarily to provide local protection from criminals and invasions and perhaps governmental tryanny. Today, our republic finds it better to rely on a professional standing armed force to repel invaders and a professional police force to enforce our laws domestically.

While I do believe that the individual has and always will have a God-given right to personal defense (including my family and other loved ones) and therefore the right to keep and bear arms, beyond that I let the governement handle the rest. I DO try to function as a good citizen and help others in need and report criminal activity to the authorities but the enforcement of the law is in the hands of our courts, legislatures and executives, and only by me through my vote. As to the tyranny of the state I depend on the mature democratic institutions that exist today that did not in 1790. They aren't perfect but I think they are better than the "militia" you propose.

 

[copenhagen]

The Battle of Athens, Tennessee

Tennessee Gentleman:

As to the tyranny of the state I depend on the mature democratic institutions that exist today that did not in 1790. They aren't perfect but I think they are better than the "militia" you propose.

1790? I believe this story is more than worthy of note:

Published in Guns & Ammo October 1995, pp. 50-51

On August 1-2, 1946, some Americans, brutalized by their county government, used armed force as a last resort to overturn it. These Americans wanted honest open elections. For years they had asked for state or federal election monitors to prevent vote fraud (forged ballots, secret ballot counts and intimidation by armed sheriff's deputies) by the local political boss. They got no help.

These Americans' absolute refusal to knuckle under had been hardened by service in World War II. Having fought to free other countries from murderous regimes, they rejected vicious abuse by their county government.

These Americans had a choice. Their state's Constitution -- Article 1, Section 26 -- recorded their right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. Few "gun control" laws had been enacted.

These Americans were residents of McMinn County, which is located between Chattanooga and Knoxville in Eastern Tennessee. The two main towns were Athens and Etowah. McMinn County residents had long been independent political thinkers. For a long time they also had: accepted bribe-taking by politicians and/or the sheriff to overlook illicit whiskey-making and gambling; financed the sheriff's department from fines-usually for speeding or public drunkenness which promoted false arrests; and put up with voting fraud by both Democrats and Republicans.

The wealthy Cantrell family, of Etowah, backed Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1932 election, hoping New Deal programs would revive the local economy and help Democrats to replace Republicans in the county government. So it proved.

Paul Cantrell was elected sheriff in the 1936,1938 and 1940 elections, but by slim margins. The sheriff was the key county official. Cantrell was elected to the state senate in 1942 and 1944; his chief deputy, Pat Mansfield, was elected sheriff. In 1946 Paul Cantrell again sought the sheriff's office.

At the end of 1945, some 3,000 battle-hardened veterans returned to McMinn County; the GIs held Cantrell politically responsible for Mansfield's doings. Early in 1946, some newly returned ex-GIs decided to challenge Cantrell politically by offering an all-ex-GI, non-partisan ticket. They promised a fraud-free election, stating in ads and speeches that there would be an honest ballot count and reform of county government.

At a rally, a GI speaker said, "The principles that we fought for in this past war do not exist in McMinn County. We fought for democracy because we believe in democracy but not the form we live under in this county" (Daily Post-Athenian, 17 June 1946, p.1 ). At the end of July 1946, 159 McMinn County GIs petitioned the FBI to send election monitors. There was no response. The Department of Justice had not responded to McMinn County residents' complaints of election fraud in 1940, 1942 and 1944.

FROM BALLOTS TO BULLETS

The primary election was held on August 1. To intimidate voters, Mansfield brought in some 200 armed "deputies." GI poll-watchers were beaten almost at once. At about 3 p.m., Tom Gillespie, an African- American voter was told by a sheriff's deputy that he could not vote. Despite being beaten, Gillespie persisted. The enraged deputy shot him. The gunshot drew a crowd. Rumors spread that Gillespie had been shot in the back; he later recovered (C. Stephen Byrum, The Battle of Athens, Paidia Productions, Chattanooga, TN, 1987; pp. 155-57).

Other deputies detained ex-GI poll-watchers in a polling place, as that made the ballot counting "Public" A crowd gathered. Sheriff Mansfield told his deputies to disperse the crowd. When the two ex-GIs smashed a big window and escaped, the crowd surged forward. The deputies, with guns drawn, formed a tight half-circle around the front of the polling place. One deputy, "his gun raised high...shouted: 'If you sons of bitches cross this street I'll kill you!'" (Byrum, p.165).

Mansfield took the ballot boxes to the jail for counting. The deputies seemed to fear immediate attack by the "people who had just liberated Europe and the South Pacific from two of the most powerful war machines in human history" (Byrum, pp. 168-69).

Short of firearms and ammunition, the GIs scoured the county to find them. By borrowing keys to the National Guard and State Guard armories, they got three M-1 rifles, five .45 semi-automatic pistols and 24 British Enfield rifles. The armories were nearly empty after the war's end. By 8 p.m. a group of GIs and "local boys" headed for the jail but left the back door unguarded to give the jail's defenders an easy way out.

Three GIs alerting passersby to danger were fired on from the jail. Two GIs were wounded. Other GIs returned fire.

Firing subsided after 30 minutes; ammunition ran low and night had fallen. Thick brick walls shielded those inside the jail. Absent radios, the GIs' rifle fire was uncoordinated. "From the hillside fire rose and fell in disorganized cascades. More than anything else, people were simply shooting at the jail" (Byrum, p.189).

Several who ventured into the street in front of the jail were wounded. One man inside the jail was badly hurt; he recovered. Most sheriff's deputies wanted to hunker down and await rescue. Governor McCord mobilized the State Guard, perhaps to scare the GIs into withdrawing. The State Guard never went to Athens. McCord may have feared that Guard units filled with ex-GIs might not fire on other ex-GIs.

At about 2 a.m. on August 2, the GIs forced the issue. Men from Meigs County threw dynamite sticks and damaged the jail's porch. The panicked deputies surrendered. GIs quickly secured the building. Paul Cantrell faded into the night, having almost been shot by a GI who knew him, but whose .45 pistol had jammed. Mansfield's deputies were kept overnight in jail for their own safety. Calm soon returned. The GIs posted guards. The rifles borrowed from the armory were cleaned and returned before sunup.

THE AFTERMATH: RESTORING DEMOCRACY

In five precincts free of vote fraud, the GI candidate for sheriff, Knox Henry, won 1,168 votes to Cantrell's 789. Other GI candidates won by similar margins.

The GI's did not hate Cantrell. They only wanted honest government. On August 2, a town meeting set up a three-man governing committee. The regular police having fled, six men were chosen to police Etowah. In addition, "Individual citizens were called upon to form patrols or guard groups, often led by a GI... To their credit, however, there is not a single mention of an abuse of power on their behalf" (Byrum, p. 220).

Once the GI candidates' victory had been certified, they cleaned up county government, the jail was fixed, newly elected officials accepted a $5,000 pay limit and Mansfield supporters who resigned were replaced.

The general election on November 5 passed quietly. McMinn County residents, having restored the rule of law, returned to their daily lives. Pat Mansfield moved back to Georgia. Paul Cantrell set up an auto dealership in Etowah. "Almost everyone who knew Cantrell in the years after the Battle' agree that he was not bitter about what had happened" (Byrum pp. 232-33; see also New York Times, 9 August 1946, p. 8).

The 79th Congress adjourned on August 2, 1946, when the Battle of Athens ended. However, Representative John Jennings Jr. from Tennessee decried McMinn County's sorry situation under Cantrell and Mansfield and the Justice Department's repeated failures to help the McMinn County residents. Jennings was delighted that "...at long last, decency and honesty, liberty and law have returned to the fine county of McMinn.. " (Congressional Record, House; U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1946; Appendix, Volume 92, Part 13, p. A4870).

THE LESSONS OF ATHENS

Those who took up arms in Athens, Tennessee, wanted honest elections, a cornerstone of our constitutional order. They had repeatedly tried to get federal or state election monitors and had used armed force so as to minimize harm to the law-breakers, showing little malice to the defeated law-breakers. They restored lawful government.

The Battle of Athens clearly shows how Americans can and should lawfully use armed force and also shows why the rule of law requires unrestricted access to firearms and how civilians with military-type firearms can beat the forces of government gone bad.

Dictators believe that public order is more important than the rule of law. However, Americans reject this idea. Brutal political repression is lethal to many. An individual criminal can harm a handful of people. Governments alone can brutalize thousands, or millions.

Law-abiding McMinn County residents won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by "gun control " They showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the rule of law.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

1790? I believe this story is more than worthy of note:

I posted this in another forum but just to show another side to this story. See this quote from the TN Encyclopedia: http://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/ima...p?EntryID=A043

Although recalled fifty years later with a certain amount of local pride, the battle of Athens initially proved a source of embarrassment, and many residents abhorred the violent, extralegal actions of the veterans. The image of gun-wielding hillbilly ex-soldiers shooting it out with the Cantrell-Mansfield "thugs" that blazed across national and regional newspaper headlines enhanced East Tennessee's reputation for violence and lawlessness. The Good Government League, empowered by the veterans' victory, scored few successes in its efforts to eradicate the vice, corruption, and arbitrary rule of machine government

Not quite the holy war you might have imagined? The "Battle of Athens" was not the finest hour of Tennessee History, was NOT an act of any militia, and ranks about with Good 'Ole Buford Pusser in heroics.

Here's more from Mark Pitcavage:

What about the Athens, Tennessee, militia of 1946? The people of Athens, McMinn County, Tennessee, in August, 1946 exercising their rights as individuals, formed a militia, and overthrew a vicious and corrupt county government.
A. They weren't a militia. In 1860-something, the people of Virginia City, Montana, organized, and ambushed and hanged a very corrupt sheriff. They didn't call themselves a militia. They were a "vigilance committee." This happened at numerous places in the early days of the gold rush. In none of these cases did the vigilantes call themselves anything but that--they were certainly not "militia." They were more concerned about distinguishing themselves from a lynch mob, and they disbanded as soon as they had dispatched the villain and legitimate law enforcement--a federal marshal in most cases--was in place.

Kind of like watching Bonanza