The People Have A Right To Organize As A Militia, Regardless of Government Approval or Endorsement

This issue has come up as a point of contention during the discussion that has eveolved from the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation that began shortly after this new year(2016). I thought it would be a good idea, then, to create a thread where this issue could be directly discussed and debated. This will hopefully cut back on the tendency for it to become a side issue in a discussion started about another related topic. Let's get to it, then!

The second amendment reads:

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.

There are a number of ways that this might be interpreted I suppose, though I think that the language is fairly clear and plain as it is. I have my own opinions on it and interpretation of it, but I'll hold off for the moment.

Within the original constitution there are a few references to the militia that should be listed, as they also directly pertain to the discussion.

Article 1, Section 8 refers to the militia:

The Congress shall have power...

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;
...
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I hate to chop it up like this. This document is much better considered as an entire body, as naturally some sections will modify the meaning of others by theri wording and meaning. Oh well, we can always reference any such other relevant areas later in the discussion.

Article 2, Section 2 refers to the militia:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

I think that does it. If I've missed any of it please post the relevant material. I think relevant case law should be posted, as well as relevant federal and state statutes. I have stated a general opinion on the issue in the thread title. I'll hold off on my expanded opinion for now, but here is this thread to discuss the issue. Discuss.
en.wikisource.org...
en.wikisource.org...
www.law.cornell.edu...

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Humans should not have to put up with tyranny, oppression and a taking away of god given freedoms, whether that be from an individual or a group of individuals calling themselves "government".

Our history is littered with instances where kingdoms and rulers have been destroyed and power taken away from those who thought they were to big to fail, even as far back as the Roman empire.

The founding Fathers understood this and the 2nd amendment gives US citizens the necessary tools to reign-in rogue government.

That's why the US government hates the constitution and the amendments and is obsessed with disarming law abiding citizens and until they do, the citizens will ALWAYS have the right to form militia for a righteous cause and to protect their security - despite what the group of humans that call themselves "government" and their pathetic propaganda tell you.

I think the freedom of assembly portion allows for the free association of armed or unarmed groups of citizens...period....

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Thank God we have a member who is wise as you in your posts.

We used to have three members at your level of wisdom, but they are gone.

A T&C violation to mention their names, but they were you know what...b@+%*.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

I really enjoy reading all the things you write. Very well put..

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

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.

You know, I've seen a lot of semantics arguments surrounding the bolded text. What is a "well regulated militia," exactly? The prevailing opinion of wingnuts is that the militia is all able bodied men (guess women don't have a right to bear arms?).

First and foremost there is no historical precedent to support the idea of independent "militias" that operate outside the authority of government. Not in the colonial era and not after the formation of the US. It was never intended that militant yahoos would declare themselves the self-appointed usurpers of whomever they deemed tyrant.

More to the point perhaps, regarding the meaning of "well regulated militia" we need only look for a STRIKINGLY SIMILAR usage in the Articles of Confederation, in the fourth paragraph of Article 6:

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

Also, let's take a peek at Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Similarly Congress can also call forth the state militias. Article I, Section 8 :

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;

If you want to be technical, what you consider the Constitutionally-protected "militia" (specifically, the armed occupation) is actually an armed insurrection that the President and Congress are empowered to quash by calling forth the state militias that are actually mentioned in the Constitution.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Sounds like the National Guard, pretty much.

Of course, there's nothing to stop anyone from calling their club a militia. But there are laws about what they can't do with it.

Forming a militia is not illegal. Plenty of them exist in the US. However it is the activities of those militias when they break the law that gets them into trouble. Only the US would allow anti government groups to arm themselves and form militias. In most countries that would be considered an act of insurrection and dealt with in that way. The US unique in that it allows this.

a reply to: Phage

Sounds like the National Guard, pretty much.

Pretty much. Several states also have state defense forces aka state guards. Unlike the state National Guards, which can be federalized as part of the US National Guard, the state defense forces cannot.

Of course, there's nothing to stop anyone from calling their club a militia. But there are laws about what they can't do with it.

Yes, that's absolutely true — anyone can form a club and call it a militia (or an army for that matter) — but that club would still not be what the Framers were referring to.

Was Colonel Bowie and Davey Crockett militias?
Was they sanctioned by USA govt at the time?

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Humans should not have to put up with tyranny, oppression and a taking away of god given freedoms, whether that be from an individual or a group of individuals calling themselves "government".

How about from a group calling themselves a "Militia"?

And please list all the ways your big evil gubmint is "oppressive" and "tyrannical". I have yet to see any actual example of this from the SovCit radicals other than "Waaa! They won't let me do what I want whenever I want!"

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

And just as in your other threads on these various popular topics, no, you don't get to just gather your buddies in the woods and call yourself a militia.

The Constitution clearly states that a WELL REGULATED Militia is authorized by the state government in which it resides. You cannot simply form a club and call yourselves a militia - or rather you can but that actually means nothing when it comes to any power or rights for those within it.

Legal Militia have to be regulated, and are created under the approval of the state. The federal government allows this as an ancillary force to be used when needed during times of internal conflict if necessary.

Once again, we have a bunch of people who preach their unwavering support for the Constitution, while sh*tting all over that Constitution when it's inconvenient to pay attention to it.

You guys really need to read that document you wave around, the translation of it is no longer up for debate when it comes to the laws of your country.

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Humans should not have to put up with tyranny, oppression and a taking away of god given freedoms, whether that be from an individual or a group of individuals calling themselves "government".

How about from a group calling themselves a "Militia"?

And please list all the ways your big evil gubmint is "oppressive" and "tyrannical". I have yet to see any actual example of this from the SovCit radicals other than "Waaa! They won't let me do what I want whenever I want!"

Sure, just before they invaded Iraq, there were global protests in the millions and millions in many countries and they still circumvented the UN security council and invaded Iraq - how's those consequences working out for the planet and America?

Hows that NSA spying lying doing it for you?

Tyranny in it's pure form imo.

ETA:

And please list all the ways your big evil gubmint

It's not my government, I'm from Australia.

originally posted by: MrSpad
Forming a militia is not illegal. Plenty of them exist in the US. However it is the activities of those militias when they break the law that gets them into trouble. Only the US would allow anti government groups to arm themselves and form militias. In most countries that would be considered an act of insurrection and dealt with in that way. The US unique in that it allows this.

You keep saying allow.

We are unique in that our government is not relegated to King status and it's citizens serfs to it.

Our government is beholden to us, we are the kings and it our serf.

The government doesnt allow us anything, it can only deny us certain things.

People have a right to assemble and overthrow an oppressive government.

Invoking constitution or certain laws is pointless. It is the right of man. Name a legal overthrow of a previous government.

Spartacus never asked if his rebellion was legal. It was his right as human being to be free.

In reality might makes right. what stops militias and upset everyday people who are being screwed over by the system is the overwhelming force of LEO's and the military.

There is a reason a lot of coups are lead by generals, they have a lot of might in their control and makes the former rule lose a lot of its might

originally posted by: jellyrev
People have a right to assemble and overthrow an oppressive government.

Invoking constitution or certain laws is pointless. It is the right of man. Name a legal overthrow of a previous government.

Spartacus never asked if his rebellion was legal. It was his right as human being to be free.

In reality might makes right. what stops militias and upset everyday people who are being screwed over by the system is the overwhelming force of LEO's and the military.

There is a reason a lot of coups are lead by generals, they have a lot of might in their control and makes the former rule lose a lot of its might

This what so many get hung up on, they want to be ruled over and controlled.

They don't understand a free man's mindset.

They will never understand why one won't simply submit and do what they are told.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

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.

You know, I've seen a lot of semantics arguments surrounding the bolded text. What is a "well regulated militia," exactly? The prevailing opinion of wingnuts is that the militia is all able bodied men (guess women don't have a right to bear arms?).

The population itself is well regulated. You can't walk out the front door and go on a shooting spree. There will be consequences. Everyone might not have a great tent or as much ammo as they'd like, but in general as a society we are fairly well regulated.

First and foremost there is no historical precedent to support the idea of independent "militias" that operate outside the authority of government. Not in the colonial era and not after the formation of the US. It was never intended that militant yahoos would declare themselves the self-appointed usurpers of whomever they deemed tyrant.

Yet the amendment is written as it is, and in simple and plain language.

If you want to be technical, what you consider the Constitutionally-protected "militia" (specifically, the armed occupation) is actually an armed insurrection that the President and Congress are empowered to quash by calling forth the state militias that are actually mentioned in the Constitution.

I think you would call them irregulars.

Words have meanings.

Here's a common one for "militia." Citation

1. a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

2. a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.

3. all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

The citations in the Constitution are clear. The Militia is a particularly recognized and created MILITARY entity encapsulating meanings 1 &3 from the above definition.

It is far beyond clear historically that the Militia as used in the Constitution and various Acts of the Federal Government, or in the State Constitutions and various laws of the several States, is not merely a group of armed citizens opposing some particular government action that they, as a small portion or limited representation of the People, disagree with or oppose.

However, In point of fact, there is a word that encapsulates that meaning as well ... and that word is "insurrection" ... and is suggested by meaning #2 above.

Further, the fact that the full meaning of the term "Militia" is almost never spelled out in any of the early documents ... because the understanding of what the word meant was plainly clear to those who were using it IN THE CONTEXT THEY WERE USING IT IN.

One must recall that unspoken context. The Founders were absolutely against the concept of Standing Armies. These armies were, in their experience, the mechanisms by which the will of unjust governments (i.e. the British Crown at a specific historical time) was enforced upon the People. Yet, is is more than clear that on regular occasions, FORCE OF ARMS is needed to defend the population from threat and to keep lawful order and public peace. That group of male citizens, within a certain age range, who existed and could be called upon to perform those two basic functions 1) defense of the population from external threat and 2) to keep lawful order and maintain the peace is shown to be, time and time again in the documents of the time and from that time until now, what the meaning of "The Militia" is.

I can link sources here substantiating these facts until my fingers are worn to nubs.

Documents on the First Congress Debate on Arms and Militia


The Militia Act of 1792


William Rawle, “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America” (1829)

“In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, in the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulation as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.” –

The Militia Act of 1903

and more generally but still related directly to the question ...

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

and so on.

So does Blackwater count as a militia?

originally posted by: jjkenobi
So does Blackwater count as a militia?

No. They're mercenaries.