Private militias are criminal gangs.

[leftysergeant]

This discussion has spread out over several threads. Maybe the mods might want to merge them into one.

It is my contention that privately-organized militias are illegal under federal and most state laws.

In Washington State, where I live, they are banned under RCQ 38.40.120. They are a breeding ground for terorists and are not to be tolerated now, given the threat which foreign terrorism already presents.

Other state laws against the formation of militias by private interests, groups or individuals can be found at:
http://libertyfight.wordpress.com/2009/07/28/laws_regarding_private_militias/

In California (Penal Code 11460) it is punishable by a year in jail.

 

[theprestige]

Yes, things that are illegal in certain jurisdictions are illegal in those jurisdictions. Congratulations on your wonderful insight.

It is illegal to smoke inside an establishment that serves the public in California. People who do so are criminals under California law.

It is illegal to operate a motor vehicle without a valid drivers license and insurance, in most states. People who do so are criminals.

So what?

Also, why does legality matter so much? I have no doubt that the Talibani militia are illegal throughout Afghanistan. And yet there they are, and many people think that's a good thing.

There are illegal immigrants working illegally all over the U.S. And yet they seem to get a lot of support from a lot of people who in other threads seem to think legality is a vital indicator of moral justification.

What about communist or socialist militias? I'm sure they'd be illegal, but would you complain so much about them? Was it Che Guevara's legal status that determined the extent of his villainy? Or did the cause he fought for actually excuse his criminal acts?

 

[Horatius]

I'd think it'd be pretty easy to get around that law.

As used in this subdivision, “paramilitary organization” means an
organization which is not an agency of the United States government
or of the State of California, or which is not a private school
meeting the requirements set forth in Section 48222 of the Education
Code, but which engages in instruction or training in guerrilla
warfare or sabotage, or which, as an organization, engages in rioting
or the violent disruption of, or the violent interference with,
school activities.

So, avoid teaching "guerrilla warfare or sabotage", and don't engage in "rioting or the violent disruption of, or the violent interference with, school activities", and this doesn't apply to you.

(1) Any person who teaches or demonstrates to any other person
the use, application, or making of any firearm, explosive, or
destructive device, or technique capable of causing injury or death
to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that these
objects or techniques will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in
the furtherance of a civil disorder, or any person who assembles with
one or more other persons for the purpose of training with,
practicing with, or being instructed in the use of any firearm,
explosive, or destructive device, or technique capable of causing
injury or death to persons, with the intent to cause or further a
civil disorder,

(2) As used in this section:
(A) “Civil disorder” means any disturbance involving acts of
violence which cause an immediate danger of or results in damage or
injury to the property or person of any other individual.

So, don't don't intend to "unlawfully" employ your training in a "civil disorder", or to "cause or further" a civil disorder, and you're okay.

So, train in non-guerrilla, non-sabotage techniques that you only intend to use to stop civil disorder that someone else starts, and this law doesn't apply.

 

[leftysergeant]

You just made some rightwhacker's tiny pea brain esplode.

 

[Neally]

It is my contention that privately-organized militias are illegal under federal and most state laws.

Evidence of illegal under federal law?
Evidence that 26 states ("most") have laws against militias?

 

[leftysergeant]

Evidence of illegal under federal law?

Defined in the constitution as a function of trhe federal and state governments.

Evidence that 26 states ("most") have laws against militias?

Did you read the link in Post #1? Some states apparently think it is too self-evident.

 

[Neally]

Defined in the constitution as a function of trhe federal and state governments.

Quote please.

Did you read the link in Post #1?

Yes, there are 17 with so called "anti-militia" laws. Some of which include restrictions on drill or parade in public with firearms, (MS) which doesn't prohibit any other type of militia activity. 17 other states have statutes against training others in acts of civil disorder, but other militia activity is not affected. As been pointed out before, some militia related activities are restricted and certainly individuals in militias can break other laws, but to say militias are illegal in most states is factually incorrect.

 

[r0ast_p0tat0es]

It is my contention that privately-organized militias are illegal under federal and most state laws.

Who cares? The federal and state governments are criminal gangs themselves. They just don't want any competition.

Seriously, what's the difference between the Chicago Outfit, the Tea Party 3rd Colonial Line Infantry of Illinois (or whatever those idiots call themselves), and the City of Chicago itself?

 

[leftysergeant]

Seriously, what's the difference between the Chicago Outfit, the Tea Party 3rd Colonial Line Infantry of Illinois (or whatever those idiots call themselves), and the City of Chicago itself?

The mayor of Chicago has to run for election. The whackadoodles who form militias just pin on some sort of insignia and call themselves commanders.

I've met a couple of them. Sick puppies, they are.

 

[funk de fino]

Militias are just wrong.

If Hugo Chavez introduced them the certain posters here would be going apoplectic.

 

[r0ast_p0tat0es]

The mayor of Chicago has to run for election. The whackadoodles who form militias just pin on some sort of insignia and call themselves commanders.

I've met a couple of them. Sick puppies, they are.

Have you met Rod Blagojevich, by any chance?

Elections are a farce, in any case.

"Okay, you are going to be raped, nothing you can do about that... But you can all choose whether you'd rather be raped by this old man, or this old man..."

Besides, are you alleging that the Tea Party doesn't vote for its spokespeople? I'm actually not sure whether they do or not, so perhaps here's a better question... Would you support them any more if they did? If the answer to that one is "no", then why the hell do you support the current state?

 

[leftysergeant]

Besides, are you alleging that the Tea Party doesn't vote for its spokespeople? I'm actually not sure whether they do or not, so perhaps here's a better question... Would you support them any more if they did? If the answer to that one is "no", then why the hell do you support the current state?

They're clueless anarchists. They're dangerous. I support the state because it exists by the consent of rational people. When elections are suspended, fine, pick up a weapon and have at it.

But when some idiot suggests that, if her party keeps getting turned away at election time, it may be neccessary to start "taking out" the victorious party, somebody belongs in jail.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Have you met Rod Blagojevich, by any chance?

what does he have to do with anything? we are talking about the mayor of chicago. besides, blago was removed from office (as governor of illinois) for criminal activities. oops, guess the system works

but what are you even adding to this thread? you seem to want to describe any group as criminal, so why bother making a distinction between legal and illegal if you just think everythings illegal?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

They're clueless anarchists. They're dangerous. I support the state because it exists by the consent of rational people. When elections are suspended, fine, pick up a weapon and have at it.

because someone picking up a gun for the first time will totally stand a chnace against the well-trained and well-equipped US military

But when some idiot suggests that, if her party keeps getting turned away at election time, it may be neccessary to start "taking out" the victorious party, somebody belongs in jail.

agreed. but this really has nothing to do with militias, any member of any political party can be just such an idiot

 

[leftysergeant]

because someone picking up a gun for the first time will totally stand a chnace against the well-trained and well-equipped US military

Actually, the fact that there are so many citizens with guns, organized or not, who will get totally pissed off about it is one of the reasons it is unlikely that even the most whacked-out would-be tyrant would have second thoughts about it and why no foreign nation really wants to bite off a piece of us. It would be hideously costly, much like invading Afghanistan.

agreed. but this really has nothing to do with militias, any member of any political party can be just such an idiot

It's mostly a matter of time before they do get froggy, and having a pseudio-authorty like Angle egging them on, they are far more likely to act out.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Actually, the fact that there are so many citizens with guns, organized or not, who will get totally pissed off about it is one of the reasons it is unlikely that even the most whacked-out would-be tyrant would have second thoughts about it and why no foreign nation really wants to bite off a piece of us. It would be hideously costly, much like invading Afghanistan.

so you think the paramilitary and militia forces in afghanistan have little to do with the difficulty in establishing control in the region?

and i know your just going to spin this around to paint militias as terrorists and therefore bad, but look at it from the afghani perspective. we invaded their country so they are defending themselves, its easy to for us in america to look at it objectively and determine whether we think its for the best or not, but its harder for them to be objective on the receiving end

It's mostly a matter of time before they do get froggy, and having a pseudio-authorty like Angle egging them on, they are far more likely to act out.

your basically saying militias are criminal because the members might commit crimes, that sets a dangerous legal precedent IMO. its akin to saying the hells angels commit crimes, therefore 2 or more motorcyclists riding together constitutes a criminal gang

if they carry out criminal acts, then yes, they are criminals, declare their specific militia a criminal gang, but not all militias. and im pretty sure inciting people to commit crimes is a crime in itself, regardless of militia membership

 

[leftysergeant]

so you think the paramilitary and militia forces in afghanistan have little to do with the difficulty in establishing control in the region?

The Afghan militias are exactly what we do not want to rise up in this country, and it is exactly where the existing outlaw militias are heading.

your basically saying militias are criminal because the members might commit crimes, that sets a dangerous legal precedent IMO.

They do commit crimes. They are a conspiracy to commit crimes. Thery are, by law, not allowed to exist. Round them up and disarm them now.

 

[casebro]

Does anybody else on this here skeptic's forum see the inherent problem with the law as quoted in post #3?

Seems to me to be a giant law against the dissemination of knowledge. The enforcement of that law could very easily make it illegal to teach the ancient art of pyrotechnics. Hmmm, I wonder how many Boy Scout merit badges could be construed as instruction in terrorism arts?

Anybody got a clue as to the actual enforcement of those anti-militia laws, and the constitutional legality there of? ?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

The Afghan militias are exactly what we do not want to rise up in this country, and it is exactly where the existing outlaw militias are heading.

outlaw militias? shouldnt you consider that redundant? or are you conceding some militias do not engage in criminal activities?

They do commit crimes. They are a conspiracy to commit crimes. Thery are, by law, not allowed to exist. Round them up and disarm them now.

and i hear obama is in a conspiracy to cede US sovereignty to the UN, should we arrest him too?

if they commit crimes, arrest them for those crimes, if those crimes are felonies take away their right to own firearms, but dont try to pretend simply being in a militia is a crime in and of itself

 

[Neally]

Thery are, by law, not allowed to exist. Round them up and disarm them now.

Evidence? Again.

But when some idiot suggests that, if her party keeps getting turned away at election time, it may be neccessary to start "taking out" the victorious party, somebody belongs in jail.

Please provide the exact quote in context.