militia?

[Philadelphia]

Is it legal to start a private state based militia? for instance, say about 30 of us got together can we form a militia? and no, not like the KKK or black panthers just something that if poop hit the fan we can get together and provide for and protect each other for positive reasons

If the poop hit the fan in PA, the governor would simply activate the PA Army National Guard (ANG) -- unless it was federalized at the time and nobody was home . . . . The state has other options but has decided not to use them. Many states have non-federalizable guard units. PA does not.

In any event, I'd recommend you join the PA ANG and not try to cobble up a 30 man "militia."

http://www.paguard.com/

[Dredly]

If the poop hit the fan in PA, the governor would simply activate the PA Army National Guard (ANG) -- unless it was federalized at the time and nobody was home . . . . The state has other options but has decided not to use them. Many states have non-federalizable guard units. PA does not.

In any event, I'd recommend you join the PA ANG and not try to cobble up a 30 man "militia."

http://www.paguard.com/

except the ANG is currently guarding Iraqi's

[widearea]

Almost a guarantee that so are we, along with any major pro 2A organization. Read the post on the guntruth blog. Its in someone's signature here.

Well..awrm seems to be keeping an eye on us too....

[Kenshin]

except the ANG is currently guarding Iraqi's

Yea and more of our guard are leaving this fall for the sandbox. Keeping in mind that once you join the ANG you are owned by the federal government for the rest of your life if they so chose to call you up. Its in the contract for all members of the military. So if your job is needed again you can be reactivated at any time.

[edstephan]

Well..awrm seems to be keeping an eye on us too....

And the problem with that is???
Ed

[widearea]

And the problem with that is???
Ed

Did I say problem...? Just surprised at how small the interwebs are...

[pex]

"A militia" and "the militia" are separate things. We are all, right now, a member of the unorganized militia. "The militia" is state controlled volunteer group, if you form "a militia" without state control and without a state appointed leader - legally and constitutionally it could be labeled an insurrection, terrorist, or whatever group. A Constitutional militia is a state function, not a private function. And the commander-in-chief is the Governor, unless federalized then it becomes the President.

Unless the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appoints a general to lead also the higher leading officers - its not a true constitutional militia and can be outlawed or labeled in a negative manner.

That doesn't make sense. Are you saying we have one organized militia but basically have the potential for 2 organized militias, and that the unorganized may not fraternize in any way?

'A militia' is a loose association of people that it no more than an interest organization and no less than a subset of the unorganized militia. It makes no sense to say that there is an unorganized militia if it is completely impotent to act.

[knight0334]

That doesn't make sense. Are you saying we have one organized militia but basically have the potential for 2 organized militias, and that the unorganized may not fraternize in any way?

'A militia' is a loose association of people that it no more than an interest organization and no less than a subset of the unorganized militia. It makes no sense to say that there is an unorganized militia if it is completely impotent to act.

Confusing, ...I know.

We have an organized militia and an unorganized militia by Federal law.

Organized:
1. The National Guard - when not federalized(called forth by the President)
2. State Guard - trained and conscripted(several states have their own officially santioned and equipped aircorp and/or soldiers - PA doesn't)

Unorganized:
1. we the people - untrained
2. volunteer State Guard - trained, but not conscripted

It may be possible that I'm incorrect about the State Guards. But there are two separate classes of "militia".


With the unorganized militia, if the Governor or President calls forth the "militia", we would report to a State appointed officer of the State Guard or National Guard. If a compulsory draft is declared we would report to federal level military for service.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

[Rudy]

I was directed here from the AWRM.org site. I was directed specifically to this thread. I wonder why? Anyway, this looks like a good group of guys. Keep clinging to your guns and religion!

The second you decide to refuse to obey an officer you are in the wrong, regardless of the reason as. Militia or not, beliefs or not, you will go to prison and you can try to wage your militia campaign from there. good luck

You might want to retract that portion of your post. These cases are not popular with the law enforcement rank and file. You can imagine how hard they work to keep them from the public.

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest:

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting; the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

[pex]

You might want to retract that portion of your post. These cases are not popular with the law enforcement rank and file. You can imagine how hard they work to keep them from the public.

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest:

You should be reminded that Pennsylvania has specific statute that disallows resistance to unlawful arrest unless unlawful deadly force is applied, to which it may be met with (deadly?) force. I don't know offhand what effect that would have on any of those SCOTUS outcomes, but it would be like quoting SCOTUS saying that the outcome of Hiibel v. Nevada meant that any person asked by police must provide their name even though PA has no stop and identify statute yet Nevada does.