A thought on the common topic of general militia usage - Page 2

publius42 · December 27, 2009, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Those organizations you speak of are not militias but rather unauthorized paramilitary organizations.

So if a militia has to be authorized, does that mean the Minutemen in the Revolutionary War were authorized by the British government?

Tennessee Gentleman · December 27, 2009, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by publius42

So if a militia has to be authorized, does that mean the Minutemen in the Revolutionary War were authorized by the British government?

The Minutemen were a select group of the larger colonial militias authorized by their colonial charters. Some of these charters (like Connecticut's in 1662 included the right of self government) but these militias answered to the colonial governments to answer your question. So yes all legal and legitimate militias MUST be authorized by and answer to a government. Otherwise, they are a mob with guns.

FWIW, General Charles Lee thought little of them (the Minutemen) and General Geroge Washington's disdain of the militia in general is well documented.

BlueTrain · December 27, 2009, 01:35 PM

While there is the quaint idea that the militia provided their own arms and equipment, the facts of the matter are otherwise. Many owned their own gear, some left over from the previous war but the rest had to be provided with arms by the government, mostly state or colonial governments. Ever hear of the Committee of Safety? I imagine that most of the backwoodsmen had their own and rifles, too.

There had been state forces during the colonial period, too, which took part in active operations in the French & Indian War, though I have no information about their equipage, pay or how they were raised. There had also been state forces spread out along the frontier both before and after the revolution, mostly to deal with the Indians. They ceased to be a problem in the east after Wayne defeated the Indians in Ohio ("and then land speculators flooded the countryside"). I believe these were called rangers. They were rather thinly spread along the frontier and always had their hands full with the hostiles.

You should remember that the real flashpoints of the revolution were the moves by the British to confiscate the colonial's arms, which did not mean going door to door but going to the place where they were mostly centrally stored.

One of the initial reasons for the militia was a fear of standing armies and the continental army was largely disbanded after the revolution. And part of that reason was the fact that, at the time, here and in Great Britain, armies were quartered on the local population, a thing that is inconceivable now, anywhere, but it was standard practice then in some places. Barracks came along rather late but even standing armies were a relatively new thing, too.

**Al Norris** · December 27, 2009, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

While very brave people they [flight #93] were not militia.

They were not "militia" if the only thing you think of, when you say, hear or read that word is; the Organized Militia.

Then you would be correct.

However...

When you understand that the "militia" is both the organized and unorganized militia (10 USC 311(b)92)), then you are clearly wrong. It was the unorganized militia that brought a stop to the terrorists of flight #93. It was an unorganized militia man who stopped the recent attack on flight #253.

You can deny it until the cows come home, but the fact remains that it will be the the self defense by the unorganized militia that will be always available when the terrorists chose and act upon their next target.

Tennessee Gentleman · December 27, 2009, 01:46 PM

Good post BlueTrain and historically accurate. I am reminded of the old saying "The older one gets the faster he ran as a boy". Folks today think of some militia ideal that they can recreate because they are frustrated with the state of America politically. So, they manufacture an older ideal and hope that by that dream they might feel better. A sign of the times I suspect.

Tennessee Gentleman · December 27, 2009, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antipitas

When you understand that the "militia" is both the organized and unorganized militia (10 USC 311(b)92)), then you are clearly wrong.

The unorganized militia is a statutory construct, a legal fiction if you will. They have no duties, rights or responsibilities and are merely a pool of people that MAY be called upon to fill the Organized Militia. In fact, and I have shown this before factually, the unorganized militia was originally created to get people OUT of serving in the militia. That same idea was written into the Militia Act of 1903.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antipitas

It was the unorganized militia that brought a stop to the terrorists of flight #93.

No it was a group of brave citizens who thrwarted a crime. Happens everytime someone sees a crime and calls the cops or otherwsie intervenes. Miltias never filled such a role historically.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antipitas

You can deny it until the cows come home, but the fact remains that it will be the the self defense by the unorganized militia that will be always available when the terrorists chose and act upon their next target.

No I will continue to point out historical, legal and legislative facts about the now defunct militia every time this is brought up.

I think it is a great thing that we can be armed for our personal self defense and I see a benefit of such for the populace at large.

However, I see a huge danger to liberty when we begin to attach a pseudo-lawful authority to such civic virtue by calling ourselves "militiamen" and then acting accordingly without government accountability or authority. Such is the stuff of lynch mobs.

Gadsdenflag · December 27, 2009, 04:03 PM

This is all taken from the Members of Congress Amici Brief in the Chicago Case

It remains the law of the land that the
reserve or unorganized militia constitutes all able bodied
males between 17 and 45. 10 U.S.C. § 311;
see also Silveira, 328 F.3d at 581 (Kleinfeld, J.,
dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc)
(“Those of us who are male and able-bodied have
almost all been militiamen for most of our lives
whether we know it or not . . . .”). Congress does
not provide arms, ammunition, or uniforms for the
reserve militia.8 Implicit in the statute is an
understanding that a substantial portion of the
reserve militia will keep their own arms. The same
understanding likely inheres in the Militia Clauses.
State laws restricting firearm possession, by
preventing the reserve militia from keeping
firearms and thus being prepared, could seriously
threaten the effectiveness of any attempt by
Congress to call forth the militia.
Lest the suggestion that Congress might call
forth the militia sound antiquated, it bears
8 From 1792 until 1903, every member of the reserve militia
was required to possess his own firearm and ammunition. 1
Stat. 264 (1792).
35
emphasis that the reserve militia has served nobly
within living memory. During World War II, with
the regular armed forces engaged in two far-flung
theaters, citizen-soldiers performed important
duties on the homefront. See Robert Dowlut, The
Right to Arms: Does the Constitution or the
Predilection of Judges Reign?, 36 Okla. L. Rev. 65,
76-77 n.52, 91-92 (1983) (describing militia duties
in Maryland, Virginia, and other States). These
citizen-soldiers provided their own arms and
ammunition, performing civil defense duties
without pay and while keeping their regular jobs.
Id. The Maryland Minute Men, for example, were
tasked by the Governor with securing their local
towns and coastlines from saboteurs. 3 State
Papers and Addresses of Governor Herbert R.
O’Conor 616-20 (March 10, 1942). Similarly faded
from the popular memory is the invasion and
occupation of several Aleutian Islands in World
War II. In the campaign to contain and evict
Japanese forces, the Army drafted local citizens
into a special, irregular unit.

The Constitution apportions authority over the militia between the
States and Congress, and it gives Congress certain enumerated powers set forth in the Militia Clauses of Article I:
“To provide for calling forth the militia to
execute the laws of the union, suppress
insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and
disciplining, the militia, and for governing
such part of them as may be employed in
the service of the United States, reserving
to the states respectively, the appointment
of the officers, and the authority of
training the militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress[.]”

The Militia Clauses presume the existence of the militia and use “militia” as a term of art, essentially meaning all able-bodied males capable of military defense. See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2799- 800. A disarmed populace, however, would be powerless to answer Congress’ call and would frustrate Congress’ ability to employ its power under the Militia Clauses. Hence, the Militia Clauses presume the continued existence of an armed citizenry. Under this
constitutional arrangement—irrespective of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments—the States could not and cannot restrict the right to keep and
bear arms in a manner that undermines Congress’ ability to exercise its enumerated militia powers.

Presser V. Illinois:
“It is undoubtedly true that all citizens
capable of bearing arms constitute the
reserved military force or reserve militia of
the United States as well as of the States,
and, in view of this prerogative of the
general government, as well as of its
general powers, the States cannot, even
laying the [Second Amendment] out of
view, prohibit the people from keeping and
bearing arms, so as to deprive the United
States of their rightful resource for
maintaining the public security, and
disable the people from performing their
duty to the general government.”

Gadsdenflag · December 27, 2009, 05:05 PM

A few other things I wanted to say about the possibility of the US being invaded. I remember reading an article about the scariest thing a soldier encountered during his time of service in the WWII. His story went like this:
His unit had taken a german officer prisoner and this soldier was conversing with him. The german officer asked where he was from and he told him a certain very small town in New England. The soldier began to describe where it was and the officer cut him off and then went on to describe in minute detail the layout of this small town. I remember reading that he was really struck by the officer's knowledge of his hometown and especially at his mentioning a certain creek, that was actually more like a ditch, and wasn't even on maps. Asking the officer how he knew so much the officer replied matter of factly: "I spent many months studying this area of the United States because after our invasion I was to be the Military Governor of area 5786 which your hometown is in."

After 3 1/2 years in combat, and seeing all that goes with it, this encounter terrified him more than anything else.

Secondly, I don't see why some are so sure that we are so safe and invasion so impossible. I am not, nor ever have been a general, admiral, member of the joint chiefs of staff, or a military planner at all, but even my uneducated, untrained mind can come up with several scenarios of invasion that would be possibly successful. To spare myself having to type up the detail as to how I would do it, just go to Netflix and rent "Red Dawn."

Lastly, I agree that the people of flight 93, those that stopped Richard Reid, and the most recent attempted incident WERE acting as members of the militia. The acts they performed were against aggressors perpetrating acts of war. Keep in mind that these types of attacks are, and will continue to be the norm in this asymmetrical war in which we are currently engaged.

So get your guns, get all the ammo you can get your hands on, and carry your weapons. The military and police cannot be everywhere at every time, but us members of the "Unorgaized Militia" can be, and are.

BlueTrain · December 27, 2009, 06:00 PM

There exists something variously called the state defense forces or names to that effect. Virginia has one. The stated purpose is basically to fill the void left by the National Guard units who have been activated. I have no idea if this was ever done but as you know, lots of National Guard units have deployed in recent years. They also have local guard functions, like guarding bridges and things like that. I'm not sure how they are armed but it is a real state force not subject to national service.

All countries have different, sometimes radically different, ways of doing things militarily. But most have some form of gradated level of organization by which I mean there are regular forces, reserves and often something even beyond that, usually of the nature of "Dad's Army" or Volksturm. Some have had organizations of the nature of a militia that were by law not liable for overseas service. In Britain those went by the name of fencible units, all of which were infantry, probably. But not all countries had what we call a militia.

The term militia has fallen on hard times lately because it has come to be associated incorrectly with private armies, a concept that some of the founding fathers were clearly against. But think of some of the more unsettled countries in Africa and, to a degree, those who call themselves a militia in this country.

It is probably correct to say that up until well after the civil war, the military strength of this country lay with the states. From the end of the revolution through the Civil War, enthusiasm for state troops had its ups and downs and in some places there seem to never have been any at all. This seems to have varied with simple popularity as much as simple need. Overall, this would generally be referred to as a volunteer movement rather than a militia movement. There was a like movement in Great Britain and in both places the central authorities had mixed feelings about it, I think. In this country it was perhaps at its height of popularity in the 1850s and it is a fact that the Civil War was fought largely with state troops, making it in fact, a War Between the States.

Canada still has an active militia, as their part time soldiers are called. The northern part of Canada is apparently only vaguely defined in places and a certain presence has been required to avoid international problems. A unique militia unit does all of this, which I believe is called the Canadian Rangers (could be another name, there are other units with ranger in the name). They are very local in nature and are armed (with Lee Enfield No 4 rifles, no less). I've suggested that something similiar be organized to help with both illegal immigration and smuggling (the former name of drug trafficing). But I doubt there's much enthusiasm for something that is real work and a little bit on the dangerous side, either at the local level (where the people come from) or at the national level in Congress. But it's an idea.

**hogdogs** · December 27, 2009, 06:51 PM

I doubt I will get the call. I will be boot scootin' on my own if the free soil of the USA is ever invaded.

I will serve far better solo than if I gathered into a large "platoon". All I need to know is where the nearest enemy are located.
Brent

Tennessee Gentleman · December 27, 2009, 07:07 PM

Gadsdenflag,

A few issues with your post. BTW smarter does not mean correct.

Quote: