Private Militias....

K

Koda94

New member
Disclaimer. I'm not interested in joining a militia, just curious on the legalities of militias pertaining to private militias... not sanctioned by the govt. This is strictly a random academic query...

My main questions are: what is a legitimate private militia? Are they really legal? What role to they play in regards to the second amendment?

What my understanding is they are two or more individuals that organize and train in military operations for lawful purposes such as the defense of the state while upholding the constitution. In contrast, the opposite is two or more individuals that organize and train in military operations for unlawful purposes such as terrorism, these are called paramilitary organizations.
Is my assessment correct?

Also, how many lawful private militias are out there and have any had notable achievements in US history? (have any stepped up to the plate and "saved the day"?)

It seems like private militias are cast in a negative light especially the few examples I've read about recently like this group in Texas: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/10/armed-patriots-hope-to-scare-away-migrants-but-they-dont-like-to-be-called-militias/
 
Since the ratification of the US constitution... Probably not many. Before that time they were fairly important.

I think there are three decent sized militias in Ohio right now(membership supposedly a few dozen or more). None of them are tempting me to join. If you do a quick google search with your state + militia their web sites will pop-up.
I imagine there are some without websites, but there are quite a few with.

With he stigma of "militia" right now you aren't going to get a lot of sane people interested in joining.
 
Koda94 said:
What my understanding is they are two or more individuals that organize and train in military operations for lawful purposes such as the defense of the state while upholding the constitution. In contrast, the opposite is two or more individuals that organize and train in military operations for unlawful purposes such as terrorism, these are called paramilitary organizations.
Is my assessment correct?
Click to expand...
A private militia is a paramilitary organization regardless of whether its purpose is lawfully supporting and defending the Constitution or unlawfully training to overturn the Constitution. Overly-militarized police departments are paramilitary organizations.

To further muddy the waters, several states have formally organized and recognized militias operating under the aegis of the state. In my state the militia operates sort of like a junior varsity National Guard. They are a subset of the state's military department and fall under the command of the head of the NG, but they are technically not NG and can't be called up for federal duty.
 
My state has a few Militias, of fairly good size. I've considered joining once I got older. It's nothing organized much I dont think, I think they muster every (month?) for training or something. Pretty interesting concept. I hear they're bit more serious out towards the west coast (Arizona and the like). Though I'm not sure.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
A private militia is a paramilitary organization regardless of whether its purpose is lawfully supporting and defending the Constitution or unlawfully training to overturn the Constitution. Overly-militarized police departments are paramilitary organizations.
Click to expand...
+1. A paramilitary is, by definition, any body that is organized and armed somewhat like a military force, but is not part of a country's official standing military.

The term has a negative connotation in modern usage because widely despised rebel groups like the Donetsk Republic, Hezbollah, and Islamic State are paramilitaries, and are often described as such in the media. However, the term is not technically limited to treasonous organizations, as many of the world's police forces are paramilitaries.
Aguila Blanca said:
To further muddy the waters, several states have formally organized and recognized militias operating under the aegis of the state. In my state the militia operates sort of like a junior varsity National Guard. They are a subset of the state's military department and fall under the command of the head of the NG, but they are technically not NG and can't be called up for federal duty.
Click to expand...
Also +1. To explain further, at the time of this country's founding, the militia generally operated under the aegis of the state government; private militia companies could and did exist, but they usually operated with some level of state sanction. Over the last two centuries, this country has placed an increasing emphasis on the professional military and has transferred most duties traditionally performed by the militia to the NG, largely due to the demands of modern mechanized warfare. Additionally, the statutory "unorganized militia" consisting of most able-bodied young people has been created, although this is arguably intended as a legal maneuver to allow the gov't to conduct a military draft, which is not otherwise authorized in the Constitution.

This has led to a good deal of confusion as to what the organized militia may consist of, outside of the NG and the various State Guards. Contrary to popular belief, the states do retain the power to legally sanction and regulate militia (paramilitary) groups outside of the NG and State Guard, but AFAIK none have recently done so. Modern private so-called "militia" groups in the USA therefore exist in a sort of legal limbo.
 
Last edited:
If a private militia is a voluntary organization, this looks like a 1st A. issue, not a second amendment one.

I joined the Cleveland Grays, an organization established prior to the Civil War (or War of Northern Aggression if you prefer) mostly because I knew the commandant and several members. They are the predecessor to Ohio National Guard's 107th Cavalry Regiment and 112th Engineer Battalion. That group hasn't been called up since WWI, so it is a social organization now, but the principle is the same, and freedom of association should apply.
 
Last edited:
Zukiphile - The Washington Light Infantry in Charleston, Virginia is still around. I think they're part of the National Guard today. They still maintain a building near the waterfront. I tried writing them about one of their Civil War members and never got a response.

I can see the formation of neighborhood watch type groups rise not to assert authority or to confront the government but for self-protection. Look at how some Americans in post-Katrina hit areas, Los Angeles and Ferguson responded when the looting started. After the crisis passed and order was restored, they immediately disbanded.

Did anything similar arise after Hurricane Sandy hit the NE?
 
Zukiphile - The Washington Light Infantry in Charleston, Virginia is still around. I think they're part of the National Guard today. They still maintain a building near the waterfront. I tried writing them about one of their Civil War members and never got a response.
Click to expand...

Sounds very similar. The Grays are a 501(c)3 and part of their mission is to maintain and preserve the armory.

http://www.graysarmory.com/index.php/about-grays/our-mission

Sadly, like any organization, it features the kind of internal politics that prevail when the stakes are small. A few years ago, a group ascended who resented member use of the facility as an armory and the only non-police department range in the city.


It's possible in a place like the Washington Light Infantry (and a lot of American Legion posts with which I am familiar), that whoever got your letter just didn't know what to do with it.
 
Last edited:
Alaska has a militia. Seems they've had it quite a while. During WWII the Army pretty much pulled out of Alaska in support of other war efforts.

Then the Japanese attacked the Aleutian Island Chain. The Alaska Territory was called to action to fight the Japanese until the Army attacked the Japanese.

See: Men of the tundra;: Eskimos at war, by Muktuk Marston

Alaska still has a militia which comes under the State Dept. of Military Affairs. They receive very little state funds and no federal funds.

I was in charge of the ARNG marksmanship training unit and was task with marksmanship/weapons training of the Militia. Again they had no federal funding and state ammo allocations come from the feds.

Most of the Militia carried personally owned '03s and Garands. I also ran sniper schools for the Guard at the same time frame using M1C/Ds so when ordering ammo for the Sniper Schools and training of Sniper Tms, I fudged and was able to provide ammo for the Militia.

I wont go into details but during the Cold War era, Alaska had plans for use of her Militias.

• GEORGE MASON (Virginia House of Burgesses, Virginia delegate to Constitutional Convention, wrote Virginia Declaration of Rights, wrote "Objections to the Constitution", urged creation of a Bill of Rights)
o "I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)
o "Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised...to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia..." (In Virginia's Ratifying Convention, Elliot p.3:379-380)
o "The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practiced in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless - by disarming them." (Elliot, p. 3:379-80)
o "I consider and fear the natural propensity of rulers to oppress the people. I wish only to prevent them from doing evil." (In Virginia's Ratifying Convention, Elliot p.3:381)
Click to expand...
 
For the generics on the legal aspect I'd ask in the Law and Civil Rights forum.

A non-state sanctioned militia may be a 1A issue, or a 2A issue, or even both. I have a feeling the lawyers in the legal forum will probably mention things like the Constitution at the very least implying the States had control of the militia, so sponsored or not, they may have to answer to the state and the state's police power + militia powers. Or some such. I'm given to understand some states have already banned non-state militias. Especially out west.

As for "how many lawful" define lawful. The ones we'd call lawful as a gut reaction? The ones who haven't been broken up yet for being unlawful? The ones that would be considered lawful after an investigation? All three of those numbers are probably at least slightly different. And probably change depending on who's doing the judging and when.

Since the ratification of the US constitution... Probably not many. Before that time they were fairly important.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go that far. Militia and Early National Guard for a small overlap were relevant for long long after the ratification. They were early law enforcement- the Whiskey Rebellion all the way through to the late 1800's to early 1900's during the labor unrest of that time.
 
In my state they got a pretty bad name in the 1980s:

http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=4031

Really they were never a legal militia, because the purpose is: "...to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; — U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 16."

Missouri Constitution: "Section 6. The governor shall be the commander in chief of the militia, except when it is called into the service of the United States, and may call out the militia to execute the laws, suppress actual and prevent threatened insurrection, and repel invasion."

Clearly the Governor is the CIC of our state's militia should it be called forth. And, any organizational structure becomes moot if the governor decides to call it forth.

There is a pretty large group of citizens who participate in militia "activities" (storm and flooding relief, SAR, and other disaster relief) in our state.

http://8thbrigade.missourimilitia.com/

I certainly don't have the time or inclination to participate, but my hat's off to them.
 
So it seems the bad rap todays private militias get is because they dont take the time to become sanctioned by the state? ....like in recent events, take matters in their own hands essentially just showing up.

Is it possible for a private militia to do it right by getting recognized (and possibly called upon) by the state?
 
Keep in mind, in most places there isn't a process to get sanctioned by the State. Most States already have either an organized militia, or an analogous statue similar to the US Militia statute defining the militia as Organized National Guard (Plus any optional state run militia) and the unorganized, almost everybody else.
 
JimDandy said:
Militia and Early National Guard for a small overlap were relevant for long long after the ratification. They were early law enforcement- the Whiskey Rebellion all the way through to the late 1800's to early 1900's during the labor unrest of that time.
Click to expand...

Indeed. We were solely reliant on the militia system well after ratification, and even after we established military academies the permanent army drew from that system.

I have a long dead relative who was in the federal army and the militia, and resigned his federal commission because it was interfering with his local ambitions, which included declaring war on Michigan.

JimDandy said:
For the generics on the legal aspect I'd ask in the Law and Civil Rights forum.

A non-state sanctioned militia may be a 1A issue, or a 2A issue, or even both. I have a feeling the lawyers in the legal forum will probably mention things like the Constitution at the very least implying the States had control of the militia, so sponsored or not, they may have to answer to the state and the state's police power + militia powers. Or some such. I'm given to understand some states have already banned non-state militias. Especially out west.
Click to expand...

I don't see what there is for a state to sanction in a voluntary association.
 
I don't see what there is for a state to sanction in a voluntary association.
Click to expand...

Maybe but they do it all the time At the bare minimum sanctioned means approved of. Whether it's articles of incorporation, permission to exist at all, or direct financial/materiel assistance and so on.
 
It makes sense that you and I couldn't incorporate our militia as the "Chipotle Militia, Inc.", but that's just because we would be using an unavailable name.

It also makes sense that associating with others and undertaking illegal acts (selling drugs, engaging in consumer fraud, calling people on do not call lists) would be prohibited. What would a private militia do that would be prohibited?

If our Chipotle Militia tried to direct traffic, hand out parking tickets and perform warrantless searches, I could see a problem, but all of those would be problematic individually too.
 
JimDandy said:
Maybe but they do it all the time At the bare minimum sanctioned means approved of. Whether it's articles of incorporation, permission to exist at all, or direct financial/materiel assistance and so on....
Click to expand...
In general, governmental involvement when people associate together for lawful purposes revolve around several issues.

  1. Disclosure of how the association is organized.

    • People who do business with or otherwise deal with a group of persons associated together for a particular purpose have an interest in knowing the form of the association. The form of association can have legal significance for anyone doing business of dealing with it.

    • So with regard to various kinds of dealings there may be laws requiring certain public disclosures or disclosures in connection with certain types of transactions. There may also be protections under the law for anyone misled to his detriment in dealing with an association.

    • If people choose certain forms of organization (e. g., a corporation), organization documents and information identifying certain key, responsible individuals (e. g., officers) need to be filed with the State. This is primarily to make such documents available to the public. (I can go to the proper public agency in the State in which XYZ Corporation incorporated and get a copy of its formation documents and a list of its officers with contact information.)

  2. Identity.

    • People dealing with a group of persons associated for a lawful purpose have an interest in knowing what group they're dealing with. So there are a variety of laws which can help avoid confusion.

    • Such laws include state laws requiring that certain forms of organization get approval of the name they intend to operate under. Such laws serve primarily to prevent a group from operating under a name potentially deceptively similar to a name being used by another group.

    • And if a group of persons associated for a lawful purpose acts under a name other than the name under which it was formed, state law will generally require that it publish a public notice of that fact.

    • Trademark laws also serve that purpose.

  3. Engaging in certain businesses

    • Engaging in certain businesses may require a license or other form of approval.

    • This would be true no matter how the person or group engaged in that business is organized.

  4. Taxes.

But subject to those sorts of constraints, a State really doesn't have anything to do with approving a group of people associating for lawful purposes.
 
zukiphile said:
What would a private militia do that would be prohibited?
Click to expand...
It is my understanding that several states have laws on the books prohibiting armed public drills or parades by private organizations without permission from the local authorities. According to what I read, most such laws were originally intended to stop intimidation of strikebreakers by early 20th century labor organizations, but some were enacted in the Jim Crow South with the implicit understanding that they would be selectively enforced against the NAACP but not the KKK. :rolleyes:

Furthermore, it is my understanding that some such laws could conceivably be enforced against private militias, but it is unclear how this would stand up in court today, as these laws generally predate incorporation of the 1A and particularly the 2A.

I have not, however, had time to research the laws firsthand.
 
Last edited:
Pure conjecture,assumption,opinion.Nothing to back it up:

Lets assume the most honorable intent

An individual can practice marksmanship,hunting,etc and develop a number of skills.

If we look around the world at Ukraine,the Middle East,or violent riots,we can imagine a situation we may want to resist.

An individual can resist,but probably with short lived and minimal effect.

Two individuals are more than twice as good.

10 makes a squad.Fire and maneuver,complimenting skills,network of support,intelligence,co-ordinated activities,etc.Covering your back.

Gangs know and practice this.

Just like a sports team or band,they would be way better if they practice and rehearse together.

Regardless of intent or purpose,if ten guys in a county begin practicing paramilitary activity,communicating with each other,purchasing items of interest,I suspect DHS,FBI,etc would likely ruin their lives.

Generally speaking,I doubt we have the Liberty to grass roots form the security equivalent of a volunteer fire dept.

Even if it were made up by the same Patriots that signed the Declaration of Independence.
 
HiBC,
Assuming the most honorable intent all it would take would be a few phone calls to most anyone that owns the gear. I dont see that drawing any unwarrented attention since half of the US is already armed, a lot of people train with their weapons with lawful intent collectivly a militia....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top