Starting New Militia

[aslinged]

@OP, when you say "take charge," what exactly do you mean by that? Take charge of what and of who?

Also curious, how/why/what is the deal with the "assist with elected authority" aspect? Are they going to deputize members, assign them tasks; does that make members accountable to the state and legal apparatus by which authority is generally conferred?

 

[7SFCW4]

...I hate to be contrary but, NRA certification is no indicator of competency. Just as Police are the last group you want to look to for firearms training (personally, I would prefer that the Police were good at Policing and NOT good at killing), hi-cap 9MM pistols will get emptied in a panic. If you are looking for legitimacy, and excellent trainers, have your Veteran members bring their DD214's and put a few Expert Marksmen in charge of weapon training, Infantry/Ranger's in charge of patrolling, etc... Just remember, human nature. For every soldier at the tip of the spear, there are 20 ~ 30 support soldiers who were not, that is not to say that these soldiers are not soldiers, they are not, usually combat experienced soldiers.

 

[RVTECH]

Also curious, how/why/what is the deal with the "assist with elected authority" aspect?

Me too. Have you presented this to the local sheriff yet? My experience is most LE agencies are not too keen on the idea of 'assistance'.

 

[AMProducts]

...I hate to be contrary but, NRA certification is no indicator of competency. Just as Police are the last group you want to look to for firearms training (personally, I would prefer that the Police were good at Policing and NOT good at killing), hi-cap 9MM pistols will get emptied in a panic. If you are looking for legitimacy, and excellent trainers, have your Veteran members bring their DD214's and put a few Expert Marksmen in charge of weapon training, Infantry/Ranger's in charge of patrolling, etc... Just remember, human nature. For every soldier at the tip of the spear, there are 20 ~ 30 support soldiers who were not, that is not to say that these soldiers are not soldiers, they are not, usually combat experienced soldiers.

I tend to agree that both police and NRA are poor indicators of past performance, I know some of the LE groups I've done training for are horrible shots, and many of them really need remedial firearms training. NRA training tends to be overly focused on score based marksmanship, with very little in terms of actual firearms training. Some years ago when I was operating as an NRA certified instructor, I taught a pre-course course that was all about gun handling. Usually I would do it as a 16 hour course over a weekend, it was 100% hands on guns, dry firing, clearing, but not a single round of live ammunition on site.

I found that this process dramatically removed nearly all of the paranoia and fear that most people experience when taking their first few shots. The following weekend we would do live fire, the first 5 shots were always "point at the hill, close your eyes, and yank on the trigger. When you're comfortable, open your eyes and aim." Usually two rounds was all that was required. Because of the dry firing, it was funny to hear people shouting "bang" when they pulled the trigger.

I will see if I can dig up my old coursework and post it.

As for military training... I'm not 100% on that either, however that's mainly because the military tends to be very rigid in it's instruction, it trains you for X weapons system, but there isn't a lot of flexibility built in, which is something I think most civilians require. I know in training for the young marines and civil air patrol, a major issue is you would always have a few people that wouldn't get it, or would need some other kinda help. Usually having a scoped rifle handy took them from a "I'm getting frustrated" back into a "this is fun" mode.

 

[MikeSettles]

Approach the current sheriff: No way. However, Clark County has several candidates (R) whom we have had sit-downs with, and they are OK with civilian volunteers - as long as there is training and some kind of supervision. The hard part will be to get past the "us versus them" attitude on both sides.

Several example missions: Guarding infrastructure (I5 bridges, power stations), and anti-looting patrols within the county. Several less-kinetic missions: Checking up on shut-ins/seniors within the county during a heat-wave or cold snap; distributing water/food during an emergency.

LEO marksmanship: I saw the results of that after the Clark SO SWAT team used the Clark Rifles' range. I picked up their paper (modified FBI silhouette) targets the next day. They had fired scoped AR-10's from bipod-prone at 200 and 300 yards. One had 6-inch groups head and chest. The rest were all over the paper, including outside the bad-guy figure - from bipod prone! And they were arrogant, to boot!

I am a former Marine (all of whom qualify at 200, 300, 500 with iron sights), Army infantry, and Army Basic Training Marksmanship Instructor + Drill Sergeant. Three tours to Afghanistan, one to Iraq between 2006-2011. Retired with 42 years, most of that Infantry. One of our guys is also a former Marine infantryman, and an Appleseed Instructor. Another (my last Marine Corps buddy) used to shoot long-range competition - he's now learning the tactical side, as he (and I) were electronics techs in the Corps. During my time going down-range, I certified five times as a Combat Life-Saver (last was 2010). Currently, I'm the best we've got, but will gladly step aside if we find someone better. My experience with EMTs: They don't know anything about battlefield trauma. For them it's "get 'em to the ER & hope they don't kick-off in the ambulance." I find that emergency medical courses don't even teach about tourniquets - yet this one tool saves more lives in combat than any other. Best for us would be an SF Medic, then a 68W/Field Medic, then an EMT who was also a recent combat veteran, then a civilian EMT who was willing to learn about IFAKs and CLS bags.

 

[RVTECH]

Clark County has several candidates (R) whom we have had sit-downs with, and they are OK with civilian volunteers

But wouldn't you ultimately need to have the Sheriff on board? I suspect he/she would be the final authority.

 

[MikeSettles]

But wouldn't you ultimately need to have the Sheriff on board? I suspect he/she would be the final authority.

Absolutely, that's why we have spoken to several of the candidates about the issue. The current sheriff (Lucas) is more of the "civilians should get out of the way and let the 'professionals' deal with it." Graser told me that a man in Dole Valley caught a burglar & held him at gun-point for thirty minutes before a deputy showed up after phoning 911.
Graser had also asked the Jail Commander what the plan was for the 700 inmates of the county jail should there be a fire in the facility. The answer: "We'll bus them to the Lower River Road facility." Question: "Do you have enough buses on site to move all those prisoners?" "No. We'll get school buses" (from "somewhere"). In the meantime, those folks will be standing around outside, with a few guards to keep an eye on them (there is NO outside enclosure). Result: Most will "rabbit" into the downtown Vancouver community. Mayhem.

This is an example (plus the one above of the current SWAT-Sniper team) of the current administration. We fear that, should Gardner (supported by the Vancouver Dems, though he claims to be an "Independent") be elected, it will be "more of the same."

Then, outside of Clark County, many of the poor (timber) counties are experiencing such difficulty keeping any kind of patrol force going, that they will find that they MUST rely on citizens for help.

Consider that Article I, Section 8 (US Constitution) delineates three roles for the (Constitutional) Militia: Repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and keep public order. Thus, constitutionally, it's in OUR hands to maintain order - yet We the People have given over OUR duty to "professionals" who are becoming increasingly Federal/Militarized.

Further comments/thoughts? This is a great discussion: Let's keep it going!

 

[RVTECH]

The current sheriff (Lucas) is more of the "civilians should get out of the way and let the 'professionals' deal with it."

This supports my point. No matter how much 'talking' you do with the candidates unless they can convince the Sheriff (which doesn't seem likely) you might find yourselves in a worse position politically as the Sheriff might think you are working 'around' him, and he may withdraw further and become even more combative about this. I am just looking at this from a 'political positioning' perspective.

 

[MikeSettles]

This supports my point. No matter how much 'talking' you do with the candidates unless they can convince the Sheriff (which doesn't seem likely) you might find yourselves in a worse position politically as the Sheriff might think you are working 'around' him, and he may withdraw further and become even more combative about this. I am just looking at this from a 'political positioning' perspective.

Very possible.

Would you have us NOT attempt to work with County Authority? Stay aloof and be just another "militia" post-event? Or attempt to help keep things from sliding too fast and too far?

 

[RVTECH]

Lets stay in context here - your answer sounds 'defensive' - and undiplomatic. The forum might be a good starting place for diplomacy - because that's what it is most certainly going to take with County Authority. I never inferred you NOT work with County Authority - but ostracizing the Sheriff will most certainly lead to a possible defensive posture on his part - and that is going to get you nowhere. Maybe I am playing a little Devils Advocate' here and seeing this through the eyes of the Sheriff - or maybe I am missing something but regardless of how agreeable the candidates are none of this will matter unless the Sheriff is also in agreement.

 

[MikeSettles]

This supports my point. No matter how much 'talking' you do with the candidates unless they can convince the Sheriff (which doesn't seem likely) you might find yourselves in a worse position politically as the Sheriff might think you are working 'around' him, and he may withdraw further and become even more combative about this. I am just looking at this from a 'political positioning' perspective.

Once again, and staying in context: One or another of the "candidates" of whom we speak is likely to be the next sheriff. That was why we spoke with them - to get their views and see what it would take to work with them were they elected.

We also realize that, because of the large (D) population in Vancouver, the next sheriff must walk a tightrope between them and the more conservative-minded folks in the rest of the county. Then too, he must navigate the rocks and shoals of his deputy's (and the police union) attitudes toward "armed civilians," until he has time to influence his own LEO's attitudes about "We the People" with (gasp) Guns!

It won't be done in a day, or a year: Maybe five years. It will mean things like getting CERT-trained, and perhaps other certifications; of making friends and breaking down current cultural barriers - reversing 100 years of "us versus them." It won't be done by, as you say, ostracizing the sheriff, nor by showing up on the courthouse steps - fully armed and equipped - and announcing that "We the People" are "here to help."

 

[RVTECH]

One or another of the "candidates" of whom we speak is likely to be the next sheriff.

Ok - now we have some 'clarity' with this. Is there perchance, anywhere in the PNW, or anywhere else in the USA where a similar styled group is already in place and working with the Local Authority? My thought is if so this could be used as an example, or 'model', for what you are presenting.

 

[natef]

Riot, Have you looked at Northwest Revolution on FB? The guys there are level headed and for the most part combat vets who are along the same lines as your thinking. The vetting process is good if you want to actually train and its not any crazy idiots who just want to be destructive or racist (nothing will get you shut out faster than being some racist jack bubblegum who just wants to blow stuff up, its not what they are about). From my experience its more about getting a group together with a plan and with the training to be able to hold out and provide mutual support in the case of either a natural disaster or a full SHTF situation.

 

[MikeSettles]

Ok - now we have some 'clarity' with this. Is there perchance, anywhere in the PNW, or anywhere else in the USA where a similar styled group is already in place and working with the Local Authority? My thought is if so this could be used as an example, or 'model', for what you are presenting.

RV: I understand that Joe Arpaio has a "posse" of trained & equipped civilians to back up his deputies. There was also (last year I think?) a story about a sheriff in New Mexico who used local Militia to beef up his strength. I don't know where in NM. There could be other places.

 

[natef]

My experience with them was less than exciting. I was approached at a gun show by a guy who was several hundred pounds over weight and hadn't pt'd in probably years and he asked me about what I thought about them. I had signed up a year or so as ago and told.him that but also told him I train with my own group. He must have never heard of opsec because at that point he starts to give me their rally points. Com's channel's. You name it. I cut him off and told him that he needed to learn about opsec and didn't know me from Adam. I have met a couple good guys in oathkeepers. They are just few and far between with ones that actually get out and train.

 

[natef]

While I appreciate what the Oath Keepers stand for and I absoutly see them as an ally in the fight to uphold the constitution. I cant help but feel that they are so muttled down with crap that they are loosing sight of the big picture. Plus after talking with several people who have gone to the meetings as well as my own experience they end up being a bunch of guys who have every best interest at heart sitting around talking about doing somthing and then when it comes down to actually getting out and training they just fumble around with it and nothing gets done. Now this is not to say that some of the regional groups arent better but for where I live I was not impressed.

I hope that in a full SHTF situation there will be a few of them that have been active that will be good to join up and provide support or work as mutual support groups for others that have been training and working as a team.

As for me though I would rather Train with people who I trust and know i can count on be it natural disaster or otherwise.

 

[AMProducts]

He must have never heard of opsec because at that point he starts to give me their rally points. Com's channel's. You name it. I cut him off and told him that he needed to learn about opsec and didn't know me from Adam.

While I don't know enough about the OK's to make any judgement on them either way. The one thing this brings up that is worth mentioning is that many groups publish open com plans and rally points specifically to alert people who are outside the group how to get a hold of them during a serious emergency. My group does this. We usually call them the "interop" freqs, in that they are reserved specifically for the purpose of allowing people to communicate with us, and vice versa.

Plus after talking with several people who have gone to the meetings as well as my own experience they end up being a bunch of guys who have every best interest at heart sitting around talking about doing somthing and then when it comes down to actually getting out and training they just fumble around with it and nothing gets done. Now this is not to say that some of the regional groups arent better but for where I live I was not impressed.

This is really common and not isolated to the OK's, or any groups really, and this is one of the major reasons why I think putting out the open call for people to join is a mistake. If you look at it in terms of SF, they put all candidates through selection, and only take those that meet their standards, putting out the call for people to "join up" is a recipe for disaster, inviting people to apply is another story entirely.

I hope that in a full SHTF situation there will be a few of them that have been active that will be good to join up and provide support or work as mutual support groups for others that have been training and working as a team.

Still not sure about this, not to sound like too much of a prick, but in a SHTF situation, I want (more) doctors, construction engineers, metallurgists, chemists, etc. Trigger pullers are everywhere and cheap, this is a fact that very few prepper/survivalist groups appreciate, however the people that can rebuild and resharpen 30 chainsaws in an afternoon, plus do all the rigging to pull out fallen trees, and setup and run the sawmill is worth more on a daily basis than 10 people that hump rifles and ammo around.

As for me though I would rather Train with people who I trust and know i can count on be it natural disaster or otherwise.

Blood is always thicker than water...

 

[natef]

Still not sure about this, not to sound like too much of a prick, but in a SHTF situation, I want (more) doctors, construction engineers, metallurgists, chemists, etc. Trigger pullers are everywhere and cheap, this is a fact that very few prepper/survivalist groups appreciate, however the people that can rebuild and resharpen 30 chainsaws in an afternoon, plus do all the rigging to pull out fallen trees, and setup and run the sawmill is worth more on a daily basis than 10 people that hump rifles and ammo around.
.

I think the key is to have a well versed and well rounded group of people. Just because you are good with a rifle and train that way doesn't mean you aren't also training in other areas or come from those other areas in life. In the group of people that i train with we have mechanical knowledge, engineers in both civil and mechanical, cooks, medics, and several other fields covered just by what the people that make up the group do day to day.

What I was trying to say with that comment there was that we will never know 100 percent what the situation will be. we can guess and we can train for all sorts of options but without a crystal ball we can only prepare for multiple situations and hope for the best. also i think it needs to be said that any militia that is doing anything to actively engage is doing it wrong. To think that your 1 group of 8 is going to take on the whole .gov is crazy. the better option is to develop a plan and a place where you can hold out and support your own and the good civilians around you until you can mount up a resistance.

While I don't know enough about the OK's to make any judgement on them either way. The one thing this brings up that is worth mentioning is that many groups publish open com plans and rally points specifically to alert people who are outside the group how to get a hold of them during a serious emergency. My group does this. We usually call them the "interop" freqs, in that they are reserved specifically for the purpose of allowing people to communicate with us, and vice versa.

I understand that. but this was a different level of giving out information. this was more like giving someone he didn't know the keys to the kingdom.

This is really common and not isolated to the OK's, or any groups really, and this is one of the major reasons why I think putting out the open call for people to join is a mistake. If you look at it in terms of SF, they put all candidates through selection, and only take those that meet their standards, putting out the call for people to "join up" is a recipe for disaster, inviting people to apply is another story entirely.

I couldn't agree more. One of the biggest problems is finding people that are solid individuals. you would not believe how many people are screened out because they are racist, anarchist, crazy as hell, you name it. Like I said above we are not training to take over the government. we are not training to go out and start a fight or do destructive acts. I truly believe that if that's the purpose of any militia they have lost the plot and need to reevaluate what they are doing.

 

[7SFCW4]

Like it or not, the popular media pretty much controls perceptions, I agree with you, the term "militia" should not be viewed with disdain, but working within our comunucation framework, it is taboo. Like when I wanted to become an NRA certified instructor, you are forbidden to say "firearm" , you could only say "gun" . Oath Keepers is a great Organization, period. They take themselves seriously, as do we members, but, the organization does suffer from lack of local leadership (METT) issues. Local PNW leadership can be alot of hat and a little horse. The citizen Initiative is a great, solid idea, but execution is spotty. Oath Keepers and your Militia will suffer the same challenges, OPSEC and infiltration. How to vett candidates, separate wheat from chaffe? In this day and age, a Militia would possibly be better eserved by a "...grey man..." focus, or cell focus rather than larger than squad assembly, training, organization.

 

[AMProducts]

Size offers economies of scale that you simply won't find with smaller groups... however, given the perpetual battle of image, it can be a very tough balancing act, but this all goes back to mission focus. Once you declare yourself a "militia" there is an assumption about what your mission focus is... that being the classical role of militia, an informal para-infantry force.