Need a new Militia Act

[RDak]

This is an answer provided by the St. Clair, Michigan website on citizens arrest:

In Michigan, a private citizen may make an arrest when they witness a felony committed in their presence. This is often called a “citizen's arrest.” Under Michigan law, a police officer may not arrest an individual who commits a misdemeanor unless he or she witnessed the criminal act.

Under the law, an officer may arrest on a misdemeanor without a warrant. In order to arrest and prosecute a person who committed a misdemeanor, an individual must witness the act and be willing to “sign the complaint (citation)".

Been that way a long time in Michigan.

In Michigan the statutory acceptable militia is organized as the Michigan Emergency Volunteers. The unregulated militias in Michigan are defined the same way as in our U.S. constitution for the most part IIRC.

 

[Stagger Lee]

I'm waiting for the day that Bob's Militia--a group of paranoid, armed fat guys who have never been in the real military and have no connection or allegiance to any elected government authority suddenly decide that it is in their own interest to forcibly take over the land of other people, grow and sell drugs to finance their games, or begin to attack minorities, claiming that they're a threat to their chosen way of life.

Theses guys were a militia, with their 120 marijuana plants, no jobs, and plans to kill hispanics. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3089125

The Ku Klux Klan would, by Jon's definition, also be a militia, wouldn't they?

I'm sure that neither of those is what the founding fathers had in mind.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Which St. Clair, MI website is that? The one run by that whack-job Joe Pilchak? Is he still wearing camouflage every day and pretending that he and his merry militia band are the true sovereign law in St. Clair County? Last I heard, he was still "just waiting for the right time" to rise up and assume control of the Sheriff's office.

He runs for Sheriff every election, too. How's that going?

Accroding to this, the Michigan Militia has a fine tradition of deciding that it's own leaders are all "FBI plants" and overthrowing them, replacing them with others who are them overthrown in turn. Very nice.

http://users.mo-net.com/mlindste/mm13fbim.html

Yeah, that's what we need in a national, armed defense force: factional psychotic anarchy.

 

[RDak]

http://www.stclairpolice.org/faqs.html

It's an official police department website.

Donald R. Barnum, Chief of Police is the head official.

You've got to try and stop your tendency for childish knee-jerk reactions Stagger Lee.

Edit: In Michigan the official militia, (i.e., outside a well-regulated militia where military training is required, etc.) is an emergency volunteer type group. Kind of like you and TG talk about.

Oh, I forgot to say, I have no idea who Joe Pilchak is.

 

[copenhagen]

TNGent:

Thats OK if they only affect themselves. But when they carry guns and purport to be the law then they have to answer to a competent elected authority. Otherwise they are not a good thing for the nation but a threat.

First off, common people, like you already said TNGent, tend to mind their own business. Secondly, I have a lot more trust in an average Joe with an HK91 and 200 rounds than I have in an average politician with a fully armed Infantry at his disposal. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, when you add to the mix the fact that higher echelons of elected officials are in thick with elitists who have no business controlling our armies, you get a recipe to destroy These United States. Take a look at General Smedley Butler's War Is A Racket.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

An activity is a noun. Review your English grammar.

I said the Militia is a noun. You are saying that for instance when a citizen that defends himself that act is a militia activity. That is false. Read the definition again. The Militia has a very precise meaning in our Constitution and you are misusing it.

I suspect it of you, "Tennessee Gentleman", because you are constantly quoting ADL propaganda and disinformation. Pitcavage is a hack hired by the ADL to put a pseudo-scholarly gloss on that. Others on this forum have warned you about him.

Well, suspect all you want. I think it is funny I can see why you don't like what guys like Pitcavage say and there are others I just haven't posted (they must be traitors too!) as his points historically and legally refute what you are saying. BTW I am a retired Army Officer and I want no part of your "militia" paramilitary forces.

Then you don't understand what letters of marque and reprisal are.

I think Douglas Kmeic dean of the Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America says something a bit different.

Letters of Marque and Reprisal are grants of authority from Congress to private citizens, not the President. Their purpose is to expressly authorize seizure and forfeiture of goods by such citizens in the context of undeclared hostilities. Without such authorization, the citizen could be treated under international law as a pirate. Occasions where one's citizens undertake hostile activity can often entangle the larger sovereignty, and therefore, it was sensible for Congress to desire to have a regulatory check upon it. Authorizing Congress to moderate or oversee private action, however, says absolutely nothing about the President's responsibilities under the Constitution.

However, he too must be a ADL spy. Bottomline is we don't use them anymore, like the militia, because they are anachronistic.

a vigilante or lynch mob are people who improperly assume the roles of judge, jury, and executioner.

And they seize people without warrants and they answer to no one like your militia.

You sound like one of the many smug citizens who have never had a tense encounter with officials or had them target you for oppression.

Except for the smug part you are right. I haven't had the state oppress me. You sound like an angry right wing person who did something to get the state to "oppress" you. What was it? I don't think you will find as many people "oppressed" by the government as you suggest. Many have posted some stories on here that were later refuted. I guess I just obey the law and while LEOs makes mistakes they usually pay dearly for them later on.

The "militias" you encourage are nothing more than volunteer paramilitary organizations with no authority from any elected government. They are a potential armed mob of vigilantes and provide no value to our society today.

Been that way a long time in Michigan.

Rdak, Making a citizens arrest is not a militia or as Jon says "militia activity".

It's an official police department website.

I don't see militia in your FAQ link RDak. Are you talking about the volunteers that are used for non-emergency work like parades and stuff. Is that your militia?

Take a look at General Smedley Butler's War Is A Racket.

copenhagen, keep in mind that Butler was rather bitter after being passed over for the post of Commandant of the Corps. I don't have a lot of trust in "Joe" with an AK-47 who answers to no one deciding he will enforce the law as he sees fit.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely,

Agreed, but in our government politicians do not have absolute power and we vote them in or out freely.

 

[Jon_Roland]

Some links on citizen's arrests

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_arrest
http://www.constitution.org/grossack/arrest.htm
http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Citizen%27s-Arrest
http://www.criminalattorney.com/pages/firm_articles_citizens_arrest.htm
http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/citarr.htm
http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/undcitar.htm
http://blogs.suburbanchicagonews.com/trooper/2007/01/citizens_arrest.html
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/CitizensArrest.aspx
http://www.ehow.com/how_2159997_citizens-arrest.html
http://dol.wa.gov/business/securityguards/citizenarrest1.pdf
http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/citizens-arrest/
http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/citizens-arrest-2.aspx
http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/citizen's%20arrest
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/72644

Foreign:
http://www.thesite.org/homelawandmoney/law/crimefacts/citizensarrest
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6323391.stm
http://www.afp.gov.au/act/victims/citizens_powers_of_arrest
http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch02s02s03s01.php
http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0001633
http://www.howtolaw.co.nz/html/ml116.asp

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Jon,
Here is a great quote from your very first source:

American citizens do not carry the authority or enjoy the legal protections of police, and are held to the principle of strict liability before the courts of civil- and criminal law including but not limited to any infringement of another's rights.

Best be real real careful about what you advise these bubba brigades to do as a "militia"! They may find themselves getting sued and there goes the truck and the double-wide!

 

[Jon_Roland]

Re: Militia is defense activity

I said the Militia is a noun. You are saying that for instance when a citizen that defends himself that act is a militia activity. That is false. Read the definition again. The Militia has a very precise meaning in our Constitution and you are misusing it.

And that noun can refer both to defense activity and those who engage in it. A citizen who defends himself is defending a member of the community who happens to be himself, and enforcing the law in doing so. That is militia. It is confining the term to refer only to those who engage in it that is false.

Back in the spring of 1994 when I wrote all but one of the Texas Militia Papers I misused it that way myself, but through further study of primary source documents, most of which are now online beginning at http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm , and realizing how the misunderstanding of the correct usage is distorting public debate on the subject, I began to correct the mistake many people make today. After 55 years of studying the Constitution I am still discovering new things about it and about the thinking of people of the Founding Era.

I think Douglas Kmeic dean of the Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America says something a bit different.

Doug usually gets things right but on this point he erred. Historically, letters of marque and reprisal (lom&r) were issued mainly to private parties, but that is not part of the definition of what they are -- a warrant to seize or destroy the personnel or assets of an offending foreign state. Just as an arrest or search warrant can be issued to anyone, official or civilian, and must be if a crime is not committed in the presence of the executor of the warrant, or immediately thereafter, so letters of marque and reprisal may be issued to anyone, official or civilian. The link I provided includes examples of lom&r being issued to President James Madison, although it was incorrectly stated as an authorization to him to issue lom&r to others. A legislative power cannot be subdelegated, and issuance of lom&r is a legislative power delegated to Congress. The correct way to state what they were trying to do was to issue the lom&r to the President and forces under his command, then have him commission any privateers as deputies for the purpose of the lom&r.

And they seize people without warrants and they answer to no one like your militia.

If they comply with the law for citizen's arrest, then that is legitimate militia. if they don't, it is not militia, although they might be excused if they act in good faith, believing they are enforcing the law. The same principle applies to law enforcement officers.

I don't think you will find as many people "oppressed" by the government as you suggest.

They come to me every day. Heading the Constitution Society provides a perspective on the problem of official abuse and corruption that most civilians don't get, preferring to ignore and deny evidence that is all around them. I have never been personally oppressed, other than a few veiled threats to kill me from government agents, but I have witnessed others after they were oppressed. I recall when a college student in Chicago being detained in a jail cell while a frat brother went back to the frat house to get cash to pay the bond/fine (because they wouldn't take a check), and how everything suddenly got quiet when I arrived, with the ending of the sound of someone being beaten. After paying, as I was about to be released, a black guy whispered to me, "We sure are sorry to see you leave. Now they are going to start beating us again." I could see that some of the cops doing the beating were Black themselves.

"We can have justice whenever those who have not been injured by injustice are as outraged by it as those who have been."
— Solon, author of the Constitution of Athens, 594 B.C.

 

[ak74]

we are all suppose to follow the origanol america guidlines set out by our founders not acceapt whatever form of govt. that happens. if you live in America you are saying i agree with the founders and i know the way it is now is not the way of the people or the founders.

 

[GEM]

Very interesting reading and many are following the thread closely simply because it's debating opposing views in a civil manner. Thank you to the intelligent posters who are positioned on opposite sides of the fence without lobbing cheap shots at each other which is so prevalent online today.

I'm following the thread with particular interest because my first and 3rd novels in the New Madrid trilogy (www.gmillercompanies.com) have militia characters that are pivotal to the storyline. Interestingly enough, the 3rd novel draws a stark contrast between the various militias' points-of-view, some examples of both extremes (i.e. simply helping neighbors and friends, guarding hospitals to augment the National Guard forces following a natural disaster, vs highway robbery, sacking of small suburbs for food, water and supplies).

I believe what I'm reading here, very well written by those representing their personal beliefs and views, is perception based upon our own personal experiences. If you've brushed up against good people with the best intentions who coincidentally have guns to protect their own and friends, your perception is going to be more positive toward the term militia. But at the other end of the spectrum, if your personal experience is seeing the proverbial "bubba" with a rifle, stores of ammo, out of shape, no previous LEO experience or military training, boasting he's "gonna put a whack on the bad guys when the SHTF", your perception would be polarized to the opposite opinion.

We all become the sum of our life's experiences, and perhaps it's not possible, for the sake of accuracy, to correctly lump ALL those who say they're militia in to the same term. I'm a believer that, although the founding fathers used the word 4 times in the original (unratified) Constitution, conditions are different today than they were back then -- and maybe TODAY we need more terms to accurately describe all of those activities that have been discussed in this thread.

Just .02.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

A citizen who defends himself is defending a member of the community who happens to be himself, and enforcing the law in doing so. That is militia.

No, it is not the militia. I think you are mangling the King's English to create a concept that suits your ideas. Using the word that way in a sentence would probably get you bad marks on a essay.

The definition is plain to me and not what you say it is but we will I guess have to agree to disagree. I will let the readers decide if the militia is something you do versus someting you are a part of.

Doug usually gets things right but on this point he erred.

If it's all the same to you, I'll go with what the law school dean says Letters of Marque and Reprisal are.

They come to me every day. Heading the Constitution Society provides a perspective on the problem of official abuse and corruption that most civilians don't get, preferring to ignore and deny evidence that is all around them.

They post of TFL a lot too. Much of what they claim is opression is mostly kookiness on their part. I found that almost all the inmates in prison are innocent as well and were really framed

Does police misconduct happen? Yes. Do they get away with it sometimes? Yes. Would the militia not misbehave as well? Yes. I think they call that the human condition.

However, do police and other public officials get put in jail, get fired or otherwise be disciplined for misconduct? Yes, all the time.

Read today's Nashville Tennessean front page about a Trooper who did backgorund checks of some of his enemies inappropriately. The "militia" that is dealing with that is called the free press. It works too. Ask John Ford, former State Senator now in the big house.

other than a few veiled threats to kill me from government agents,

This sounds kind of kooky Jon. No offense but I don't think you are that big of a threat to "them".

conditions are different today than they were back then -- and maybe TODAY we need more terms to accurately describe all of those activities that have been discussed in this thread.

A good bit of reason here. There is a lot that the ordinary citizen can do to help his/her community. The "militia" movement IMHO does not factor into that equation.

 

[Jon_Roland]

Re: Militia is defense activity

No, it is not the militia. I think you are mangling the King's English to create a concept that suits your ideas.

Sorry, TG, but the historical evidence, which I have provided in previous links, does not support that restriction of meaning. You are relying on your own, limited, contemporary impression of the meaning, from the usages you are familiar with, but to get the original meaning you have to do some research. I used to misuse the term also, and discovered the evidence that I had been wrong.

That Merriam-Webster definition you quoted provided four definitions of the term, starting with the Latin meaning, and made no attempt to provide the 18th century definition, only the 20th century.

See
* Charlton T. Lewis, An Elementary Latin Dictionary, p. 505, Oxford U. Pr., 1997.
* Noun Formation, Class Notes in Latin, U. Idaho.
* John B. Van Sickle, Roots of Style: A Guide to Latin & Greek Elements in English, Brooklyn College, City University of New York.

I'll go with what the law school dean says Letters of Marque and Reprisal are.

Doug is not an expert on the subject. He just looked it up before answering the question, and gave his off-hand opinion. I am probably the leading expert on letters of marque and reprisal, and plenty of experts consider me one. But you can read the historical record for yourself. Learn to do your own research. Lawyers are seldom competent historians, and Doug is not a historian.

However, do police and other public officials get put in jail, get fired or otherwise be disciplined for misconduct? Yes, all the time.

But more often they don't. They get away with wrongdoing far more often than not, banding together as a tribe to protect one another. It usually takes a major expose and a lot of public pressure to get them to hang someone.

Read today's Nashville Tennessean front page about a Trooper who did backgorund checks of some of his enemies inappropriately. The "militia" that is dealing with that is called the free press. It works too. Ask John Ford, former State Senator now in the big house.

Yes, good investigative journalism is militia. But most journalists are afraid to do it today, fearing reprisals. Consider what Marie Ragghianti had to go through to put a Tennessee governor in prison. She was engaged in militia when she did that.

I don't think you are that big of a threat to "them".

I don't think I am, either, but many of them threaten all kinds of people every day. Many, especially BATFE agents, can be real thugs, especially when you criticize them or threaten to expose their wrongdoing, and they think you aren't "wired". As I said, your experience may not have brought you that yet, but just try investigating or criticizing some of them and see what happens. You will be shocked and amazed at how much of a police state we already live in without most people being aware of it.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Re: Militia as defense activity

I'm going to try this once more, since Tennessee Gentleman copied my post from another thread to this one (thanks, TG -- glad you liked it).

Jon, that post was in response to your statement, in that thread:

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).

(my italics)

You seemed to be saying, in that post, that "militia" isn't a noun (all of which do take the articles "a" and "the"). If it's not a noun, it's a verb. Those are the choices. Those were the choices in the 18th century, as well.

If you mean that then, as now, nouns were sometimes transformed into verbs, you are correct: cf. John Adams' use of "caucus:"

Soon after caucus became popular as a noun, it also appeared as a verb, again from the pen of John Adams. In a letter to James Warren dated May 12, 1776, Adams wrote: “For God’s Sake Caucass it, before Hand, and agree unanimously to push for the same Man.” In that passage caucus is used as a transitive verb meaning ‘decide on (something) in a caucus.’ By 1788 the verbal noun caucusing was in use, and the intransitive verb caucus ‘to hold a caucus’ followed on its heels.​

(Ben Zimmer, Oxford University Press)​

If this took place with "militia," we'd expect to find cases in which it's conjugated as a verb: I militia, he militias. Don't think so. The closest verb form in English is "to militate," which has the same Latin root but means something completely different.

I'm unable to locate any citation, in the OED or elsewhere, of the English word "militia" as having a meaning of "defense activity." Granted that negative evidence isn't as compelling as the positive kind -- but the usage you're claiming just isn't there. The meanings in the definition Tennessee Gentleman copied to this thread are pretty much it, as far back as the 17th century.

(Quibbling over grammar is a bit of a time-waster, but you seem to attach such importance to this... )

 

[Hugh Damright]

reporting a crime is militia, as is scouting, neighborhood watch, or volunteer fire departments. Even merely obeying laws is militia

I'm sorry but I don't see how these things are "militia" anymore than they are "interstate commerce" or "due process".

If I plant a turnip, is that "militia"? I would be defending a part of the community against hunger.

It seems too broad a definition.

I think a distinction needs to be made between a free State and a monarchial State ... in either State the people might report crime, scout, have a neighborhood watch, etc ... but in one State the final authority is the King, and in the other State the final authority is the body of citizens ... I believe it is this distinction which militia is intended to secure.

IIRC, the requests for the Second Amendment regard the principle that a standing army in times of peace is a danger to liberty, and that the proper defense of a free State is militia composed of the body of people. I am finding it difficult to construe this to regard volunteer fire departments and such. And what of the federal power over militia, how does that relate to volunteer fire departments and such ... if planting a turnip is "militia", then does the federal government have a power to organize and discipline my planting of a turnip?

 

[copenhagen]

GEM:

I believe what I'm reading here, very well written by those representing their personal beliefs and views, is perception based upon our own personal experiences. If you've brushed up against good people with the best intentions who coincidentally have guns to protect their own and friends, your perception is going to be more positive toward the term militia. But at the other end of the spectrum, if your personal experience is seeing the proverbial "bubba" with a rifle, stores of ammo, out of shape, no previous LEO experience or military training, boasting he's "gonna put a whack on the bad guys when the SHTF", your perception would be polarized to the opposite opinion.

This makes sense. This is where TN Gent and I tend to differ. I grew up mainly around responsible hard working people who also happened to be armed. In my neck of Dixie, I can trust a stranger with my life. We still say "Sir" and "Ma'am." Many men from my region have prior service in either the military, fire department, or as law enforcement. If they do not, they almost assuredly have years of outdoor time under their belts, combined with a country boy's will to survive, and a healthy distrust of big government. I cannot speak for the characters that TN Gent has encountered, but, I'll have to say, I've never met anyone like that where I'm from. Never. I did run into a few odd ones at a Southern California gun show recently (Crossroads of the West, I believe..), but they really did not concern me as anything more than sources of hot air. I let them be, they let me be. The beauties of libertarianism.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I'm going to try this once more, since Tennessee Gentleman copied my post from another thread to this one (thanks, TG -- glad you liked it).

Very well put Vanya! Jon is creating the use of the word to fit his ideological agenda in an attempt I believe to confuse good citizenship and civic mindedness with the Constitutional Militia. I think he is doing this to provide a framework to advance his notions of societal breakdown and give the answer to said breakdown in a practical way. The militia is no more so he constructs one out of civic virtue and sells it thus.
Anyway, I'm not a english teacher but I had some good ones and I know the difference between a noun and a verb. Thank you again.

Doug is not an expert on the subject. He just looked it up before answering the question, and gave his off-hand opinion. I am probably the leading expert on letters of marque and reprisal, and plenty of experts consider me one. But you can read the historical record for yourself. Learn to do your own research. Lawyers are seldom competent historians, and Doug is not a historian.

Funny, until you started posting here I never heard of you and I am a bit of an amateur historian myself though neither published nor expert like you of course. However, when I consult other references, even some you have provided I find your analysis flawed and rather self-serving to your notion of civic virtue as the militia and Letters of Marque and such. All I know is what I read but what I read disagrees with what you write.

I cannot speak for the characters that TN Gent has encountered, but, I'll have to say, I've never met anyone like that where I'm from. Never.

Maybe you should live in the suburbs? Seriously, copenhagen, don't do like Jon and confuse good citizenship with the militia.

The people where I live are good people. Fairly well off financially and most never served in the military. Same thing I saw when stationed in Georgia, Washington DC, Rhode Island, Virginia etc. Most Americans have not served. Trying to put my neighbors in a militia would be one big Charlie Foxtrot. Now, you might hang around with a bunch that have served but you are not living therefore with a representative group in the US concernig military experience.

GEM is right in that our experiences color our opinions. My experiences ARE mostly military and that is why I take such a dim view of this militia stuff. Military operations to be successful require military discipline, knowledge, and competency that was not as necessary in 1790. The difference between a guy off the street today and a guy off the farm in 1790 with military competency is night and day. But even G. Washington didn't like the militia and wanted to be rid of them then!
When I say the militia is dead and buried, don't take my meaning to be that I believe the people of this country are therefore no damned good.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Hugh Damright wrote:

... if planting a turnip is "militia", then does the federal government have a power to organize and discipline my planting of a turnip?

Oh, jeez, I hope not. Of course, if it did, maybe I'd have better luck gardening.

Nice reductio ad absurdum, there, Hugh. (As long as Mr. Roland is doing his bit to elevate the discussion by invoking Latin, I guess I'd better do mine.)

TG wrote:

Jon is creating the use of the word to fit his ideological agenda in an attempt I believe to confuse good citizenship and civic mindedness with the Constitutional Militia. I think he is doing this to provide a framework to advance his notions of societal breakdown and give the answer to said breakdown in a practical way. The militia is no more so he constructs one out of civic virtue and sells it thus.

TG, I think you're exactly right about this. And maybe part of his agenda is to tie the RKBA to this much looser concept of "defense activity," as a way of arguing against the (exploded thanks to Heller) notion that the RKBA applies only in the context of an "organized" militia. (I've often wished that the 2nd Amendment were more clearly worded -- let's face it, it's not -- but it's what we have to work with.) If so, it's fuzzy thinking on his part, but well-intentioned.

And thank you, for your many good posts on the various ways the "militias" he wants to support are at best wrong-headed, at worst dangerous.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Yes, thank God for Heller! I have always believed the RKBA was not tied to service in a militia and if the SCOTUS had ruled otherwise :barf:

Trying to use Mr. Roland's view of the militia to insure RKBA would have been dead on arrival politically and pushed us back into a real corner while making the more reasonable of us look like kooks if we had argued so.

I do enjoy reading and posting here now that I am retired and have time to do this stuff. It is fun and I appreciate your posts as well. Al Norris, are you reading these? Just checking.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Re: Militia as defense activity

Jon Roland wrote:

For a more complete discussion of the etymology see Militia v. Inimicitia.

Well, I've had a look at this, and I'm not persuaded, for a couple of reasons. First, Mr. Roland wrote this himself; he makes the same claims as to the 18c. meaning of "militia" that he's been making here, but, again, without any supporting evidence from the period. Yes, the Latin meaning is generally given as "military service," so if the Constitution had been written in Latin, he would have a point. But the meaning in English is what it is.

In that article, Mr. Roland writes:

Since it is common in English to use a word for an activity to refer to collections of persons engaged in that activity, it is therefore in accordance with such usage to use the term "militia" to also refer to one or more persons engaged in militia, the activity.​

It's that noun-versus-verb thing again. Yes, there are collective nouns which are also verbs: "crew," for example: "the crew" and "they crewed the ship," or "the chorus" and "they chorused." The only examples I can come up with in which the same word is used, as a noun, to describe both an activity and those who engage in it are formed from verbs: e.g. "management."

Perhaps Mr. Roland can supply other examples. I wish he would, just as I wish he'd cite a single 18c. example of the usage of "militia" he's insisting on.

Referring us to one of his own pieces of writing in which he makes the same unsupported claim isn't a valid form of argument.