Private militias are criminal gangs.

[Aoidoi]

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.

Why do you think they are "heading" anywhere? We've had "militias" running around for decades doing very little but annoying the local wildlife.

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.

When they step out of line, they get stomped. Those yahoos who planned to kill a cop then bomb the funeral got arrested before they even got to step 1. They were turned in by other militias who knew they were out of line.

Why go after militias when they haven't done anything? Isn't that perilously close to thoughtcrime and a pretty clear violation of the right to assembly? It certainly isn't going to help decrease the number of people who are pissed at the government, and certainly will pressure them to become more radicalized.

I don't worry about the militias that are out in the open publicly complaining, I worry about the ones who are being quiet and keeping out of sight.

 

[Nova Land]

An item on this subject by Joelle Polesky, "The Rise of Private Militia: a first and second amendment analysis of the right to organize and the right to train", appears in the April 1996 issue of the University of Pennsylvania Law Review.

I am not familiar with either Polesky or the legal issues involved, so don't know how reliable a source Polesky is. But the appearance of this item in a legitimate law review, without apparent uproar, indicates to me it's probably a good place to look at least as a start.

Despite what may at first appear to be a constitutional right to operate as a militia, numerous states have statutes prohibiting the existence of private militia and/or their training activities. To assess the constitutionality of these state statutes, this Comment examines some of the First and Second Amendment issues involved in regulating private militia.

Polesky argues that the 2nd amendment (as interpreted by the courts in 1996) does not provide protection against state laws which outright ban private militias but the 1st amendment does. I won't bother excerpting the material on that, but those interested might enjoy clicking the link and reading what Polesky has to say on that.

Two types of statutes proscribe private militia activity. The first type prohibits paramilitary organization altogether, and the second proscribes paramilitary training. Although anti-paramilitary organization laws are an outright ban on the creation of private militia, anti-paramilitary training statutes require proof of intent to commit a proscribed act. [57] Seventeen states have currently adopted anti-paramilitary organization laws, [58] seventeen states have anti-paramilitary training statutes, [59] and seven states have adopted both anti-organization and anti-training statutes. [60]...

Footnote 57 explains the difference between these two types of statutes:

The two types of state laws operate somewhat differently. Anti-paramilitary training laws ban groups whose members know or intend that a civil disorder will result from their activities. Anti-militia laws, on the other hand, ban all unauthorized militias, regardless of whether the participants have any specific criminal intent or knowledge...

Looking at footnotes 58, 59, and 60:

(1) the 17 states which Polesky says ban paramilitary organizations altogether (which sounds to me like the outlawing of private militias) are: Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Texas, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming.

(2) the 17 states which Polesky says restrict training by private militias are: Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.

(3) the 7 states which Polesky says both outlaw private militias and restrict their training are Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island.

For Washington state, the cited statute is Wash. Rev. Code Ann. s 38.40.120 (West 1961), which looks to match the numbers of the statute lefty has been citing. So lefty and Polesky appear to be in agreement that state law in Washington outlaws private militias.

The fact that one legal scholar agrees with lefty does not mean lefty (or that scholar) are right. Laws can be complicated, and reasonable people can often disagree on exactly what they mean. But those of you who seem to be arguing, especially in the thread which this thread spun out of, that what lefty is saying is crazy and couldn't possibly be right, might do well to pause and try to put aside whatever emotional reactions are distorting your perceptions.

Lefty is not, and should not be, the issue here. Private militias, and the laws governing them, are; and while lefty may state his opinions in colorful and sometimes hyperbolic ways, the opinions he's stating and claims he's making are reasonable ones which are worth considering reasonably. What he claims may turn out to be right, or it may turn out to be wrong. But let's accept or reject what he says based on rational examination, not knee-jerk emotional responses.

 

[Nova Land]

I mentioned in my previous post that law is complicated and legal scholars may see things differently. Here's an example. While Polesky indicated that 24 states outlaw private militias, a different (unsigned) item at jrank.org (which appears to be an online law encyclopedia) implies that only one state, Wyoming, outlaws them.

Private militias are armed military groups that are composed of private citizens and not recognized by federal or state governments. Private militias have been formed by individuals in America since the colonial period. In fact, the Revolutionary War against England was fought in part by armies comprising not professional soldiers but ordinary male citizens.

Approximately half the states maintain laws regulating private militias. Generally, these laws prohibit the parading and exercising of armed private militias in public, but do not forbid the formation of private militias. In Wyoming, however, state law forbids the very formation of private militias. Under section 19-1-106 of the Wyoming Statutes, "No body of men other than the regularly organized national guard or the troops of the United States shall associate themselves together as a military company or organization, or parade in public with arms without license of the governor." The Wyoming law also prohibits the public funding of private militias. Anyone convicted of violating the provisions of the law is subject to a fine of not more than $1,000, imprisonment of six months, or both, for each offense.

Both Polesky's item and the jrank item appear reasonable. I do not know which, if either, is correct.

They both agree that many states regulate private militias. They both agree that at least one state outlaws private militias. But they appear to be in disagreement as to the exact number of the latter.

It may be the reason Polesky and the jrank item disagree as to how many states outlaw private militias comes down to a disagreement about what it means to outlaw private militias. Figuring this out likely calls for looking up the various different statutes cited by Polesky -- something I do not have time or energy to do any time soon.

I'll be away for the next 5 days, with minimal computer access during that time, so probably won't be contributing more to this thread until I get back. But I am interested in catching up then on what y'all have to say in this thread.

 

[dudalb]

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?

You are either kidding, or are subscribing to an extreme Libertarian point of view.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

No body of men other than the regularly organized national guard or the troops of the United States shall associate themselves together as a military company or organization.

i would argue the definition of the "military company" or "military organization" referred to in the law (my personal belief has always been that "militia" and "military" are 2 separate bodies)

 

[Rogue1stclass]

I asked this in one of the other threads, but how exactly could you criminalize "private militias" without also criminalizing any number of shooting clubs, veteran's groups, or re-enactor societies? Even many private security companies would fall under the definition of an armed, paramilitary force.

 

[leftysergeant]

I asked this in one of the other threads, but how exactly could you criminalize "private militias" without also criminalizing any number of shooting clubs, veteran's groups, or re-enactor societies? Even many private security companies would fall under the definition of an armed, paramilitary force.

You didn't read RCW 38.40.120.

 

[Rogue1stclass]

You didn't read RCW 38.40.120.

Yeah, that code keeps people from creating unauthorized military organizations. The part you seem to have trouble with is that if a group doesn't claim to be an actual military organization, that RCW 38.40.120 doesn't apply.

In other words, I can start the 1st Beaver Intradiction Brigade, adopt a paramilitary structure, and even train (on private property) for the upcoming Beaver Rebellion. However, should I start attempting to claim some authority from the state, such as the right to take off work to train, or to parade as a unit, or even wear recognized military insignia, then RCW 38.40.120 kicks in and I am guilty of a misdemeanor.

 

[leftysergeant]

Yeah, that code keeps people from creating unauthorized military organizations. The part you seem to have trouble with is that if a group doesn't claim to be an actual military organization, that RCW 38.40.120 doesn't apply.

They have a command structure and they train with weapons. You are quibbling and snivelling.

Anybody with a room temperature IQ should agree that it is not in the public interest to have armed crazies running around in the woods thinking they have some sort of authority to be doing it.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

They have a command structure and they train with weapons.

so do private security companies

 

[casebro]

They have a command structure and they train with weapons. You are quibbling and snivelling.

Anybody with a room temperature IQ should agree that it is not in the public interest to have armed crazies running around in the woods thinking they have some sort of authority to be doing it.

So do the Boy Scouts. Pocket knives and bows and arrows.

 

[Bob Klase]

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

They have a command structure and they train with weapons.

Oops. There goes every local, regional and any other type of non-federal non-state police organization (unless there's some I don't know about that have no command structure and don't train with weapons).

You are quibbling and snivelling.

So first you need to kill all the lawyers and judges. Then you're free to make the law mean whatever you want it to say. Won't even have to be consistent- it can mean one thing today, tomorrow it means whatever you want it to mean tomorrow. End of quibbbling and snivelling, beginning of utopia.

 

[Rogue1stclass]

They have a command structure and they train with weapons. You are quibbling and snivelling.

So that's what it takes to be a "military organization"?

Do these guys know how illegal they are? How about these guys?

Or, could you perhaps be full of ******

I'm guessing the latter, because, by definition, the military is a function of government. An unauthorized military organization, as spelled out in that section you keep barking about, is clearly a group trying to claim that function without authorization. It really can't be anymore simple than that.

Anybody with a room temperature IQ should agree that it is not in the public interest to have armed crazies running around in the woods thinking they have some sort of authority to be doing it.

As long as they are breaking no other laws, they absolutely have the authority to do it. When they start claiming that they are some form of the actual military, be it state or Federal, well, they don't have the authority to do that.

 

[Nosi]

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

Even a well stretched US military that is groaning over deployment in two over seas wars?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Even a well stretched US military that is groaning over deployment in two over seas wars?

maybe they are planning a coup as we speak, after all, you cant trust those crazies running around with guns

So that's what it takes to be a "military organization"?

Do these guys know how illegal they are? How about these guys?

Or, could you perhaps be full of ******

I'm guessing the latter, because, by definition, the military is a function of government. An unauthorized military organization, as spelled out in that section you keep barking about, is clearly a group trying to claim that function without authorization. It really can't be anymore simple than that.



As long as they are breaking no other laws, they absolutely have the authority to do it. When they start claiming that they are some form of the actual military, be it state or Federal, well, they don't have the authority to do that.

and these guys too

 

[leftysergeant]

So that's what it takes to be a "military organization"?

Do these guys know how illegal they are?

They are an educational society devoted to preserving part of American history, not a bunch of malcontnets intent on restructuring society when they decide the government has gone too far.

How about these guys?

That's the goofiest arguement you have yet presented. THis is another educational and artistic society devoted to preserving knowledge of a long past period of history, and entirely a social activity clearly within the coverage of the 1st Ammendment.

I'm guessing the latter, because, by definition, the military is a function of government. An unauthorized military organization, as spelled out in that section you keep barking about, is clearly a group trying to claim that function without authorization. It really can't be anymore simple than that.

And that is exactly what groups like the Washington State Militia and Militia of Montana and that sick pack of whackadoodles are, and exactly what RCW 38.40.120 and Wyoming Statutes 19-1-106 address.address

As long as they are breaking no other laws, they absolutely have the authority to do it.

No, they clearly have not.

When they start claiming that they are some form of the actual military, be it state or Federal, well, they don't have the authority to do that.

By existing, they do that. When the idiot who put together the Washington State Militia was busted, the defense he offered to the general public was "We are the unorganized militia." That, in itself, is a part of the Big Lie that they feed the sheep to recruit the useful idiots to their cause.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

They are an educational society devoted to preserving part of American history, not a bunch of malcontnets intent on restructuring society when they decide the government has gone too far.



That's the goofiest arguement you have yet presented. THis is another educational and artistic society devoted to preserving knowledge of a long past period of history, and entirely a social activity clearly within the coverage of the 1st Ammendment.



And that is exactly what groups like the Washington State Militia and Militia of Montana and that sick pack of whackadoodles are, and exactly what RCW 38.40.120 and Wyoming Statutes 19-1-106 address.address





No, they clearly have not.



By existing, they do that. When the idiot who put together the Washington State Militia was busted, the defense he offered to the general public was "We are the unorganized militia." That, in itself, is a part of the Big Lie that they feed the sheep to recruit the useful idiots to their cause.

so it all seems to boil down to your personal opinions of the group in question, and your definition of "crazies"

so when the US is a dictatorship, and you are the dictator, then your decrees will be law, until then, private militias are legal

 

[leftysergeant]

so it all seems to boil down to your personal opinions of the group in question, and your definition of "crazies"

so when the US is a dictatorship, and you are the dictator, then your decrees will be law, until then, private militias are legal

You do not seem to be grasping what the statutes say. In the majority of states the organizations themselves (as in WA) or the things that they do which make them dangerous are clearly prohibited by law.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

You do not seem to be grasping what the statutes say. In the majority of states the organizations themselves (as in WA) or the things that they do which make them dangerous are clearly prohibited by law.

No organized body other than the recognized militia organizations of this state, armed forces of the United States, students of educational institutions where military science is a prescribed part of the course of instruction or bona fide veterans organizations shall associate themselves together as a military company or organize or parade in public with firearms: PROVIDED, That nothing herein shall be construed to prevent authorized parades by the organized militia of another state or armed forces of foreign countries. Any person participating in any such unauthorized organization shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

"clearly prohibited" based solely on your extremely broad interpretation of the law, and your idea of what constitutes a "military company" which you previously described as:

They have a command structure and they train with weapons.

so how does this not apply to municipal police departments? or even the boy scouts? i learned to how use and maintain a rifle, and how to load and fire a shotgun while in the boy scouts, how does that not make me a criminal in your mind?

 

[Bob Klase]

They are an educational society devoted to preserving part of American history, not a bunch of malcontnets intent on restructuring society when they decide the government has gone too far.

So they don't "have a command structure and train with weapons."?

That's the goofiest arguement you have yet presented. THis is another educational and artistic society devoted to preserving knowledge of a long past period of history, and entirely a social activity clearly within the coverage of the 1st Ammendment.

So they don't "have a command structure and train with weapons."?

Be careful and keep a sharp eye to your rear. It's easy to trip and fall down when you're backtracking that fast.