Message from a former militia member

[Koda]

Most people may not know this but most states, including Oregon and Wa. have state militias that are separate forces from federal militias (like the National Guard) and are entirely under state control only. In Oregon we have the Oregon State Defense Force. These state militias are sanctioned and can be called upon and activated by the state governor. I'm not certain how this fits in with resisting tyranny maybe gives the individual states the ability to resist federal tyranny and or secede from the union, but as far as I know these are the only actual "organized" militas everything else is private militias.

I technically don't have a problem with private militias but the idea they can train to fight "their definition" of tyranny is the reason people generally don't accept them as anything but fringe groups. Anytime I research one I find loose organizational structure, poor vetting of members and controversial public statements, participating in political protests or causes.... and with hidden anti-govt agendas steeped in religious beliefs or sovereign citizen beliefs and it seems to me that religious motives violate the separation clause (ie: unconstitutional) and I'm not a supporter of the sovereign citizen movement. If someone knows of a private militia that is simply just there to support communities needs and/or are ready to volunteer to fight actual constitutional tyranny when called upon I'd be interesting in learning about them.

good to learn private militias are not illegal, thanks for citing the law @arakboss

 

[oremike]

Kate Brown reactivated this in Dec 2019 and they are looking for volunteers
.https://www.oregon.gov/omd/programs/Pages/Civil-Defense-Force.aspx

 

[nammac]

Hmmm... In this thread, I once again see a division in gun owners regarding a militia, the type that would be considered "Patriots", an organized force to "remove" a tyrannical government. Sad that we, as gun owners, cannot get to a common ground and a common voice. This will be our undoing, the nature of our splinteredness... Quite sad indeed, glad those guys 245 years ago had the fortitude... Wish we could find similar today...

 

[Koda]

Hmmm... In this thread, I once again see a division in gun owners regarding a militia, the type that would be considered "Patriots", an organized force to "remove" a tyrannical government. Sad that we, as gun owners, cannot get to a common ground and a common voice. This will be our undoing, the nature of our splinteredness... Quite sad indeed, glad those guys 245 years ago had the fortitude... Wish we could find similar today...

Well then maybe for any discussion to move forward we should put a definition on the what type would be considered "patriots" because based on my reply above all I find is controversial groups steeped in hidden agendas. Can you clarify this definition of a Militia we should all support?

 

[oremike]

My personal experiences was I was asked to be a firearms training Sargent in a Militia back in the late 80's early 90's. I turned them down not wanting to be part of a carry a Natzi dagger in one hand and a bible in the other cult.
Before that I was in the National Guard weekend warroiring at Camp Rialia where I saw a bunch of older solders dressed in the old pickle suit utilities. I was told they were the Oregon State Militia and were training to do crowd control and to take over the armories when the regular guard needed them to. That to me sounded like they were expecting armed insurrections or riots and needed to use the armories as holding compounds. I didn't want any part of that either.

 

[Tom Louis]

Hmmm... In this thread, I once again see a division in gun owners regarding a militia, the type that would be considered "Patriots", an organized force to "remove" a tyrannical government. Sad that we, as gun owners, cannot get to a common ground and a common voice. This will be our undoing, the nature of our splinteredness... Quite sad indeed, glad those guys 245 years ago had the fortitude... Wish we could find similar today...
[/QUOTE]

According to best historical information and informed guesses about fifteen to twenty percent of the population then were loyayists to King George. Around thirty five to forty percent supported the revolution and the rest were neutral. It seems they were just as splintered then as now. Tom

 

[nammac]

Hmmm... In this thread, I once again see a division in gun owners regarding a militia, the type that would be considered "Patriots", an organized force to "remove" a tyrannical government. Sad that we, as gun owners, cannot get to a common ground and a common voice. This will be our undoing, the nature of our splinteredness... Quite sad indeed, glad those guys 245 years ago had the fortitude... Wish we could find similar today...

According to best historical information and informed guesses about fifteen to twenty percent of the population then were loyayists to King George. Around thirty five to forty percent supported the revolution and the rest were neutral. It seems they were just as splintered then as now. Tom
[/QUOTE]
Agreed, the general
Populace was splintered, the real question is, of the thirty-five to forty percent who supported the Revolution, what percentages were splintered, thinking a) current conditions aren't so bad; b) perhaps we shouldn't take up arms against the King; c) things will get better on their own, and on and on... Those who wanted things to be made right, free, different, how were they splintered, that's the group you'd want to compare... I think...

 

[nammac]

Well then maybe for any discussion to move forward we should put a definition on the what type would be considered "patriots" because based on my reply above all I find is controversial groups steeped in hidden agendas. Can you clarify this definition of a Militia we should all support?

The point I was trying to make is the constitution tells us how we have a right to dissolve the current government and create a new one. Some have posted they don't support armed force to do this... Well, then perhaps we can try to vote them out...

Just for the record, I don't support those I'll formed and I'll intended "militias". My definition would be more in line with founding fathers ideologies, for the good of the people, and the state... Difficult to define, but I think we all have our own idea of just what that might be.

 

[Cavedweller]

The point I was trying to make is the constitution tells us how we have a right to dissolve the current government and create a new one.

I believe you are thinking of the Declaration of Independence:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I know of no such right enumerated in the Constitution.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Edited. Dang phone had saved a quote mistakenly

I believe you are thinking of the Declaration of Independence:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I know of no such right enumerated in the Constitution.

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What exactly does free mean in relation to the State?

At the time, one may say "free from foreign control or the English Crown"?

Currently though, does it refer to the fact that governments may be changed by the People in the State, if necessary?

Did the American Civil War answer these questions, or did The American War of Independence/Revolution?

 

[Cavedweller]

What exactly does free mean in relation to the State?

At the time, one may say "free from foreign control or the English Crown"?

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean, but the Bill of Rights, and thus the 2nd Amendment, was written in 1789, 6 years after independence from England was achieved, so no, it was not justification for the Revolution.

Currently though, does it refer to the fact that governments may be changed by the People in the State, if necessary?

I would not interpret it that way. To me it says the purpose of the militia is to protect the state.

 

[CamoDeafie]

To me it says the purpose of the militia is to protect the state.

That's another thing that confounds me. If as you posit, the duty of the militias, and the military are to protect the State then the oath that people keep speaking of, is only to protect the State; not the People?

In effect then, the anti-government groups, be they called "militias", or "terrorist cells" are in fact the very definition of domestic enemies?

Again looking at the American Civil War, and at every rebellion and insurrections and violence in America's history, the trend is clear; the Organized Militias and Military and the unorganized militias are meant to protect the State from the People?


Many would say no, that is not how the 2A is written; and how the Constitution is defined, as all of the Bill of Rights seek to limit the State/Fed governments, and to protect the People

 

[Koda]

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean, but the Bill of Rights, and thus the 2nd Amendment, was written in 1789, 6 years after independence from England was achieved, so no, it was not justification for the Revolution.


I would not interpret it that way. To me it says the purpose of the militia is to protect the state.

this is exactly what I mean when I asked to define the proper application of private militias. Until we do, all of them having their own definition of "tyranny" means they are not legitimate.

 

[gmerkt]

Most people may not know this but most states, including Oregon and Wa. have state militias that are separate forces from federal militias (like the National Guard) and are entirely under state control only. In Oregon we have the Oregon State Defense Force. These state militias are sanctioned and can be called upon and activated by the state governor. I'm not certain how this fits in with resisting tyranny maybe gives the individual states the ability to resist federal tyranny and or secede from the union, but as far as I know these are the only actual "organized" militias everything else is private militias.

State military departments and any formations they may control are mainly back-up in case their respective National Guard gets federalized. As happened in WW2 and the Korean war. When this occurred, states that lost their NG forces had to come up with some state force to take their place. At present, most purely state military organizations are shells that would be filled out at such time as their NG went federal. Historically when that happens, they enlist men (and next time, presumably women) who are otherwise not fit for active duty. Due to physical condition, age, etc.

Okay, next idea re. state laws that ban paramilitary training. I read the Oregon law, it bans paramilitary training that is done within the context of promoting unlawful activity that causes bodily injury or death. Or that would be used to cause civil disorder. Those offenses are no doubt already against the law in the form of other statutes. So combining them together within the context of private military activity makes it a little slippery in that the law could be used to apply frivolous or selective prosecution. As in, "Oh, you say you are re-enactors who are just out for fun? Okay, you are under arrest and it's up to you and your (expensive) lawyers to show that your activity wasn't being used to promote violence." Or something like that. Just a little fear that lurks in the back of my mind.

To get to the real core of the issue. 18 US Code 2385, Advocating the Overthrow of Government. Which applies to federal and state government as well. There is another related statute, 18 US Code 2384, Seditious Conspiracy, which is closely related because it involves more than one individual. The latter has been used a number of times against Puerto Rican separatists, for example.

Read these statutes. Federal law makes it a crime to advocate what some private militias have called for.

Whether you agree with the law or not, it's there on the books. With all the force of the US Government behind it if necessary. Each individual has to decide for himself what he wants to put on the line in the way of defending principles. He has to decide if he wants to give up material comforts, the security of/for his family and personal liberty for a fight he stands every chance of losing. It's a tough monkey.

A kinda/sorta related case in history comes to mind. The Minutemen of the 1960's. Does anyone remember Bob DePugh? Well, he and his lot decided that Communism was going to take over in the US. One thing lead to another including bank robbery. But Bob didn't die in Prison. I think the Minutemen had the idea that somehow the US Government would come under Communist control and therefore that was what the Minutemen would oppose, not the existing government of the time.

 

[nammac]

I believe you are thinking of the Declaration of Independence:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I know of no such right enumerated in the Constitution.

You are indeed correct sir... Appearantly, I'm caffeine deprived in the new year....

 

[awshoot]

...
I technically don't have a problem with private militias but the idea they can train to fight "their definition" of tyranny is the reason people generally don't accept them as anything but fringe groups. Anytime I research one I find loose organizational structure, poor vetting of members and controversial public statements, participating in political protests or causes.... and with hidden anti-govt agendas steeped in religious beliefs or sovereign citizen beliefs and it seems to me that religious motives violate the separation clause (ie: unconstitutional) and I'm not a supporter of the sovereign citizen movement.
...

Peruse the comments to the article OP posted -- a whole lot of crazy there, everything from anti-semitism to a psychic's predictions and either knuckleheads or FBI provocateurs filling the gaps.

I would suspect that militia groups would get a bit less negative press, maybe even popular support, if they were styled more like self-defense groups and could figure out how to banish bigots, blowhards, and nuts of all variations.

 

[awshoot]

Hmmm... In this thread, I once again see a division in gun owners regarding a militia, the type that would be considered "Patriots", an organized force to "remove" a tyrannical government. ...

Well, when certain militia groups would just kill me for my heritage, it's hard to feel all that kindly toward them.

 

[Camelfilter]

Well, when certain militia groups would just kill me for my heritage, it's hard to feel all that kindly toward them.

That's the thing tho. Those "folk" are not Militia, IMO.

Just crazy folk in a group.

The MSM of the time found a few of those kooky groups and ratcheted up the scare factor for more viewers.

TV stories were made etc etc.

Now the idea of "Militia" is associated purely with the kookies.

Had read of some decent Militia groups down in mid to Northern California. Doing all kinds decent work. Search and rescue, helping out there own communities following disasters & such.

No idea on if they are still active.

 

[CountryGent]

Peruse the comments to the article OP posted -- a whole lot of crazy there, everything from anti-semitism to a psychic's predictions and either knuckleheads or FBI provocateurs filling the gaps.

So, pretty much par for the course for Zero Hedge and similar nutburger sites.

 

[awshoot]

That's the thing tho. Those "folk" are not Militia, IMO.

Just crazy folk in a group.

The MSM of the time found a few of those kooky groups and ratcheted up the scare factor for more viewers.
...
Had read of some decent Militia groups down in mid to Northern California. Doing all kinds decent work. Search and rescue, helping out there own communities following disasters & such.

No idea on if they are still active.

I don't doubt the media ratchet effect, I'm sure it is at play. As for groups doing SAR etc., that sounds great to me, though they may want to ramp up their public relations skills so that people actually see or hear about that aspect.