Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 37 of 37

Thread: Does your state have a Militia.......????

  1. #21
    Resident Wildman Wildthang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,825

    Default

    As many gun totin red necks as we have here in Ohio, I think almost everybody here is a mini militia:scared


  2. #22
    Senior Member BENESSE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Gotham
    Posts
    9,676

    Default

    This is what gives militias a bad name:

    "LUDOWICI, Ga. (AP) — Four Army soldiers based in southeast Georgia killed a former comrade and his girlfriend to protect an anarchist militia group they formed that stockpiled assault weapons and plotted a range of anti-government attacks, prosecutors told a judge Monday...."

    http://news.yahoo.com/prosecutor-ga-...173341769.html

  3. #23
    reclinite automaton canid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Central California/West Texas
    Posts
    6,622

    Default

    It sounds like that doesn't speak any more against militias than it does against regular federal forces (which it appears they where). Or insurgencies, for that matter, which it sounds their goal had been.
    Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice - Grey's Law.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To see what's going on in my knife shop check out CanidArmory on Youtube or on Facebook.

  4. #24
    Administrator Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Central Indiana
    Posts
    58,832
    Tracks Across the High Plains...Death on the Bombay Line...A Touch of Death and Mayhem...Dead Rock...The Griswald Mine Boys...All On Amazon Books.

  5. #25
    Senior Member BENESSE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Gotham
    Posts
    9,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by canid View Post
    It sounds like that doesn't speak any more against militias than it does against regular federal forces (which it appears they where). Or insurgencies, for that matter, which it sounds their goal had been.
    Dunno...I took a wild guess that "to protect an anarchist militia group they formed that stockpiled assault weapons and plotted a range of anti-government attacks..." sounded pretty negative. Who cares what their background was...I don't.

  6. #26
    reclinite automaton canid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Central California/West Texas
    Posts
    6,622

    Default

    You made the statement that it gives militias a bad name. I wanted to take the opportunity of pointing out that it does so no more than it does to the Army to which they belonged, and that the relevant problem may more appropriately be the insurgency the group was allegedly trying to form. Why point the finger in one direction and not the other two?

    I would say they give paramilitary nutjobs a bad name, and the rest is to greater and lesser extents incidental.
    Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice - Grey's Law.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To see what's going on in my knife shop check out CanidArmory on Youtube or on Facebook.

  7. #27
    Senior Member karatediver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Kalifornia
    Posts
    219

    Default

    Forming or joining a militia group that is not sactioned by your state is a quick way to get on a watch list at best. I really, really recommend you do not do that if you do not want that sort of attention. Some of these groups are downright dangerous. It may be your constitutional right but the government (Federal, State, and Local) views all of these groups as potential terror groups and keeps them under a watchful eye. You may be doing nothing wrong but if a couple folks in the group do something wrong you could get swept up in it. Ruby Ridge, Waco, Fast and Furious, etc are all evidence that even after the dust settles and it is proven that the government did some things wrong it really doesn't matter to the dead. And the government rarely if ever pays any price for its mistakes.
    If you can keep your head when all about you, are losing their's and blaming it on you. -Kipling

  8. #28
    reclinite automaton canid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Central California/West Texas
    Posts
    6,622

    Default

    I'm very sure it is. I suspect that there are many people who feel that it's worth attracting that sort of scrutiny if face of their motivations. Some such people know that they intend to do no wrong and figure why sweat it, and probably others feel that (insert however extremists rationalize their views here). Then there's probably the entire spectrum between.

    A lesson that might be learned from the last decade (or from other decades before it) is that a vigilant government is capable of viewing any group as a potential terror or subversive group. I would expect nothing less than for them to try to keep an eye on all those who appear the more likely, and that the nail should be hit squarely on the head at times and missed altogether at others.
    Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice - Grey's Law.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To see what's going on in my knife shop check out CanidArmory on Youtube or on Facebook.

  9. #29
    Senior Member karatediver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Kalifornia
    Posts
    219

    Default

    It probably does not help that there probably has not been one positive piece of media coverage of a militia group. That's not saying that some do not do positive things like community service. It just means the media isn't covering it. Plus all the media coverage immediatly goes to the separatists who are calling for the overthrow of the government particularly when they are caught doing something stupid and/or illegal.

    At one time in this country even cities and counties had their own government sanctioned militias and they would drill and train the citizen soldiers made up of men from the local community. Strange how far we've come now to seeing military service now as nothing more than professionals. Sometimes I think we lose something by not still having this model. People seem to be less responsible or take less seriously their civic duty to protect and serve in their own communities leaving it to others or the government to get it done.
    If you can keep your head when all about you, are losing their's and blaming it on you. -Kipling

  10. #30
    reclinite automaton canid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Central California/West Texas
    Posts
    6,622

    Default

    well, I must admit that "Local militia group sit around in their respective homes, between working and raising families until and in case their state ever actually has any need for an irregular self defense force" isn't quite as intriguing headline as "Local militia group conspiracy|coverup murder|weapons|race issues|the sky is falling".
    Last edited by canid; 08-27-2012 at 06:42 PM.
    Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice - Grey's Law.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To see what's going on in my knife shop check out CanidArmory on Youtube or on Facebook.

  11. #31
    Senior Member Graf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Fenton, Michigan
    Posts
    358

    Default

    If you don't think your on a list now, your probably mistaken, I'm confident this forum, gun list etc are all monitored.
    Semper Paratus

  12. #32
    Senior Member hunter63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    SE/SW Wisconsin
    Posts
    26,866

    Default

    Thanks Rick, cool site.....
    Geezer Squad....Charter Member #1
    Evoking the 50 year old rule...
    First 50 years...worried about the small stuff...second 50 years....Not so much
    Member Wahoo Killer knives club....#27

  13. #33
    Senior Member Daniel Nighteyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Somewhere on Turtle Island
    Posts
    837

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyratshooter View Post
    I always get a kick out of people screaming that federal troops can not be used against civilians! I remember well the 101 going into Detroit with duce and a halfs with quad 50s mounted on them to take control during the riots.
    Not disagreeing with you at all. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina there were ample press photos of 82nd Airborne troopers patrolling downtown New Orleans with M-16s at high port.

    Now, with that said, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 permits federal troops to be used on humanitarian missions. It also permits them to be used in support of local law enforcement. To some the second one seems to be a distinction without a difference, but this is not so. The keys are (a) the assigned mission, and (b) is WHO IS CALLING THE SHOTS (no pun intended).

    I have seen the same thing in the aftermath of other major hurricanes on the central Gulf Coast, though with federalized National Guard troops -- usually Military Police units. From this has come several fairly humorous, 100% true stories -- but that is for another thread.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
    Last edited by Daniel Nighteyes; 08-27-2012 at 11:34 PM.

  14. #34
    Administrator Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Central Indiana
    Posts
    58,832

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by karatediver
    That's not saying that some do not do positive things like community service.


    Court ordered doesn't count.
    Tracks Across the High Plains...Death on the Bombay Line...A Touch of Death and Mayhem...Dead Rock...The Griswald Mine Boys...All On Amazon Books.

  15. #35
    Senior Member karatediver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Kalifornia
    Posts
    219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Nighteyes View Post
    Not disagreeing with you at all. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina there were ample press photos of 82nd Airborne troopers patrolling downtown New Orleans with M-16s at high port.

    Now, with that said, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 permits federal troops to be used on humanitarian missions. It also permits them to be used in support of local law enforcement. To some the second one seems to be a distinction without a difference, but this is not so. The keys are (a) the assigned mission, and (b) is WHO IS CALLING THE SHOTS (no pun intended).

    I have seen the same thing in the aftermath of other major hurricanes on the central Gulf Coast, though with federalized National Guard troops -- usually Military Police units. From this has come several fairly humorous, 100% true stories -- but that is for another thread.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
    The Insurection Act is also an exception to Posse Comitatus. When Federal Troops were used in the LA Riots that is what the President used as his justification. Insurection can have a pretty broad definition depending on who is living at Pennsylvania Ave.
    If you can keep your head when all about you, are losing their's and blaming it on you. -Kipling

  16. #36
    Alaska, The Madness! 1stimestar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Little cabin in the woods, middle of Alaska.
    Posts
    5,248

    Default

    My husband worked for a time for the local militia leader here in Fairbanks. Glad he quit as Schaeffer is now in federal prison waiting trial.
    http://newsminer.com/view/full_story...ome_lead_story
    Why do I live in Alaska? Because I can.

    Alaska, the Madness! Bloggity Stories of the North Country

    "Building Codes, Alaskans don't need no stinking Building Codes." Sourdough

    Yes, I have wifi in my outhouse!

  17. #37
    Senior Member Daniel Nighteyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Somewhere on Turtle Island
    Posts
    837

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by karatediver View Post
    The Insurection Act is also an exception to Posse Comitatus. When Federal Troops were used in the LA Riots that is what the President used as his justification. Insurection can have a pretty broad definition depending on who is living at Pennsylvania Ave.
    Thanks, karatediver, for this update. 'Tis very interesting indeed. Here is the Wikipedia entry:

    =============================

    The entire text of the Posse Comitatus Act, as amended in 1956, is as follows:

    18 U.S.C. § 1385 - Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

    "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both".

    Accordingly, actions taken under the Insurrection Act have always been exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act.[1][2]

    Congress is restricted by and through their Constitutional Oath and in fact, in Article. 1 Section 8 "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" is the check upon Congress and the President. http://constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm


    Amendments of 2006

    On September 30, 2006, the Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill (repealed as of 2008). Section 1076 of the law changed Sec. 333 of the "Insurrection Act," and widened the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States to enforce the laws. Under this act, the President may also deploy troops as a police force during a natural disaster, epidemic, serious public health emergency, terrorist attack, or other condition, when the President determines that the authorities of the state are incapable of maintaining public order. The bill also modified Sec. 334 of the Insurrection Act, giving the President authority to order the dispersal of either insurgents or "those obstructing the enforcement of the laws." The law changed the name of the chapter from "Insurrection" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order."

    The 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, repeals the changes made in the 2007 bill.[3]

    The 2007 Defense Authorization Bill, with over $500 billion allocated to the military, and which also contained the changes to the Insurrection Act of 1807, was passed by a bipartisan majority of both houses of Congress: 398-23 in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[4] For military forces to be used under the provisions of the revised Insurrection Act, the following conditions must be met:

    (1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--

    (A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--

    (i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and

    (ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or

    (B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

    (2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--

    (A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

    (B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.


    ========================

    The differences between the old wording and the new wording are rather dramatic. Though my intention is to avoid going political, perhaps one should consider (a) the dates of the initial changes, and the later revisions/limitations, while considering (b) who was in office at the time the changes and revisions took place.

    In the words of Detective Joe Friday (Dragnet), I suggest that we consider "Just the facts..."

    Regards as always,

    -- Nighteyes
    Last edited by Daniel Nighteyes; 08-31-2012 at 08:07 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •