Militia of the Several States

[Metz]

Count me in. Isn't the PAZRT basically our militia right now?

My thought exactly!

The problem is, I check their (our? ) forum once in the few month. We definitely have to be more organized and involved.

I gave it a lot of thoughts lately. I bet all counties have some sort of emergency management department. So I really think it will be essential to put "our" people on those boards. Not the power tripping cops, who think they are THE authority and don't give a damn about common sense and safety of us, and not the bureaucrats, that will shit their pants and freeze, waiting for the unlikely federal help to come. I'm talking about normal people like us. People, that know, that it's not about the army and police. People, that will question every tyrannical decision of such boards. People, that make sure we have our shit covered, while bureaucrats pushing papers and LEOs are shining their badges in front of the mirrors.

[mosseater]

Thanks White Feather (long trang?) for the info. I'll add it to my collection for future reference. I just want to point out that per my education on the matter thus far, the Militia of the Several States is not only a right enumerated in The Constitution, but a mandate for the legislatures, and particularly the Governors of the states, to facilitate and provide for the organization of. It is not optional. We should not ask, we need to be firm. In fact, there can be a meaning taken that they are breaking the supreme law of the land by not carrying out their sworn duty to "defend and uphold The Constitution" by NOT purposefully organizing the Militia. The National Guard may be a form of "militia" if people, in their ignorance, want to relate it to the citizenry, but the founders knew full well, and cautioned repeatedly, about standing armies and professional soldiers NOT being the only means of guaranteeing "a free state". In fact, by their existance apart from the body of the people, standing armies could be brought to bear against the citizenry for the exact purpose of tyranny. Wanna guess how many times the word "usurper" and all it's forms is stated in the Federalist Papers? Easily in the triple digits. The Militia of the Several States was to not only be involved directly in communities for their protection and welfare, but also to assist in carrying out the laws of the nation when called forth by the Governor or President. It was expected that that the proportion of Militia to Federal troops would be so high that common sense alone would guarantee no attempt would be made at repression of the people.

I don't disparage any attempt to lawfully start and run what many are calling "a Militia". My great concern is that these attempts, successful though they may be or appear to be, are not a form that is Constitutionally mandated or guaranteed. Obviously, that is a generalization, since I cannot possibly have had time to research every structured group. I think we need to do this right so it can not be denied or quashed, and so that it can be acceptable to all and not appear threatening or portrayed in a bad light, and can be carried forth forever more from this point. It now appears there are many groups across the country, some clearly with ill intent, that are going about this badly. It does not bode well for the right and just revitalization we should be seeking. I fully understand the reasoning and emotion behind most of these groups. God knows, I feel it too. I won't talk anyone down because they are trying to do the right thing. I just think using "a militia" as a hammer to nail up hundreds of ominous signs, forboding doom to any gubmint official who dares step inside the wire, is not preferrable to sincerely going about the work of lobbying for the righteous legislation which will bring about the trust and duty of the true, Constitutional entity.

The very fact that the laws White Feather posted, the fact that legislation has made up out of whole cloth a title; US Militia, un-organized Militia, citizen's Militia, et.al, what ever other names they have come up with, tells me we are not only far away from the legal prize we should be pursuing, but the very people we have elected to keep the trust of The Supreme Law of the Land, are sadly misguide and un-informed at the very least. Criminal at the very worst.

God created "We The People", we created the state government, the people and the state government created the federal system. It's high time we got our house in order. Sorry if I got preachy or stepped on any toes, not my intention. Three years ago, I was a guy going to work every day, paying my taxes, saving for college, just trying to get by. Now I've got a fire in my belly every day. I don't know for sure where I'm headed, but I can't stop. I have a duty as a citizen to "ensure a Republican form of governmnet", and I aim to do just that.

[Ricochet]

Anyone in SW PA thinking of doing the same?

[mosseater]

For those who might not be familiar with Dr. Edwin Vieira's work, here is a link to an interview in which he paraphrases a goodly portion of info contained in his book, "Constitutional Homeland Security".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Owb5dMBR3w8
(sorry, no clickie till I figure out how to work it)
As I said, I'm not a joiner and he isn't my guru. A friend of mine gave me his book because he was taken with it, and I must admit the information is hard to refute. Hell, I'll lend my copy of it if it'll be returned! I'll warn you, it's not an easy read and there are no pictures, but the information is very well presented.

I posted the link on a non-gun site recently and the first reply post made a flippant remark about how "the guy seems very radical, right wing". Well, I don't see how Vieira's logic on the subject fails. You will see in the video it pours forth from him without effort and you have to listen hard. He is well-read on the subject for sure. The history is what it is, and denying it because you don't like it's content pretty much tells me which party one votes for.

Hope you'll take the time to listen to a few of these. They are well worth it, IMO.

[Greywolf]

My understanding is we cannot revitalize until we organize Committees of Safetly and go about the necessary work of passing legislation specific to re-establishing the Militia. Other names that have been given (ie., "unorganized militia") are NOT Constitutional, and are therefore invalid (and in fact, maybe detrimental to the cause). There is only ONE form of Constitutional Militia enumerated and all others have no standing in the public form or Republican Government. Again, I had no understanding until a year or so ago, so if you don't either, I highly recommend Dr. Vieira's book. I'm not historically a "joiner" of causes, but this one really caught my eye and I'm feeling a compulsion to get moving and take action. No offense meant to anyone, just trying to do this right.

I respectfully submit that your understanding is flawed. Or else Dr. Viera's explanation is flawed.

First, there is no such thing as a (or "the") "Constitutional Militia." The Constitution of the United States did not and does not provide for or create any militia. The 2nd Amendment does mention militia in a prefatory clause, but that is only a passing recognition that militias already existed in the several states.

Secondly, the Constitution makes no mention of "Committees of Safety," so how do you arrive at the conclusion that such are a necessary prerequisite to establishing a legally-recognized militia?

Thirdly, the unorganized militia exists under Federal law -- the same Federal law that recognizes and defines what constitutes the militia under Federal law. And the Militia Act makes no mention of Committees of Safety as a prerequisite for establishing a militia.

Before you set out to enact legislation to "revitalize" the militia, as you phrase it -- it would behoove you to do enough research to demonstrate that the militia doesn't already exist, or at least the that the legal framework for the militia already exists in state law.

[Greywolf]

Don't violate this law or any Other in any way, shape or form or face the consequences, unlike criminals you will be closily watched, tracked, infiltrated setup and aggressively prosecuted. They are looking for domestic enemies to justify the expansion of control over all of US.

Note the fine print in the law with the prohibition on Paramilitary training along with exemptions.

You're overreacting, and throwing the baby out with the bath water. Eliminating a lot of the chaff, the pertinent sections are:

Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act
http://acslpa.org/html/pa_uniform_firearms_act.html

...

(b) Prohibited training.--
(1) Whoever teaches or demonstrates to any other person
the use application, or making of any firearm, explosive or
incendiary device or technique capable of causing injury or
death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or
intending that same will be unlawfully employed for use in,
or in furtherance of, a civil disorder commits a misdemeanor
of the first degree.

(2) Whoever assembles with one or more persons for the
purpose of training with, practicing with or being instructed
in the use of any firearm, explosive or incendiary device or
technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, said
person intending to employ unlawfully the same for use in or
in furtherance of a civil disorder commits a misdemeanor of
the first degree.

Clearly, the law prohibits paramilitary training only if it is carried out with the intent of carrying out civil insurrection (i.e. terrorism). Given that a legitimate militia exists for the defense of the state and the populace, "paramilitary" training of a properly constituted militia is not addressed or prohibited by this law.

[StingyGunner]

+1 Must be organized (with hierarchy).

[Capt Quahog]

Back in the 1970s, I was a member of the Massachusetts State Militia. Yep! It was the state sanctioned original entity and we even had our own General appointed by somebody at the state house on Beacon Hill. The General would get us stuff like ID cards and permission to use state land for Militia use. Now and then we received cartons of fresh C-rations and "blank" ammo. The reason then given for the continued existence of the Massachusetts State Guard Militia was as a para-military backup force for the state National Guard. It was reasoned that if a national emergency arose and the state National Guard was federalized, then the State Guard Militia would occupy military installations and provide protection. Makes perfect sense, especially now in year 2011.

In the old days of the 1919 Police Strike, Governor Calvin Coolidge called out the Massachusetts State Guard Militia to put down the riots and maintain order. Have some photos showing Militia troops armed with trapdoor Springfield rifles paroling the streets of Boston in September 1919. The Massachusetts State Militia battled the mobs and even shot down a few rioters using their 45-70 rifles. Mounted horsemen of the Militia staged a cavalry charge with sabers and pistols and cleared the streets near Boston's Fanuel Hall market. Militiamen killed a dozen or more of the riotous subversives!

In the 1970s, as legitimate members of the State Militia, training maneuvers took place out in the western part of the state beyond Worcester. We carried out skirmish type war games from Friday to Sunday night. The weekend conflicts were between the State Militia and Massachusetts National Guard along with Army Reserve units. It was a blast and the militia always won over superior numbers of those chubby slow moving Army weekend warriors!

For all anybody knows, the establishment of the Massachusetts State Guard is still in place but lost track of on the books. Would venture to guess that other state militias exist in law but have also been forgotten.

Massachusetts Governor Calvin Coolidge inspects State Militia troops during the Boston Police strike of September 1919. Note the State Guard issued trapdoor 45-70 Springfield rifles.

[Metz]

Clearly, the law prohibits paramilitary training only if it is carried out with the intent of carrying out civil insurrection (i.e. terrorism).

I wouldn't dare to put myself to the position, when I have to prove it to the NSA.

[mosseater]

I respectfully submit that your understanding is flawed. Or else Dr. Viera's explanation is flawed.

First, there is no such thing as a (or "the") "Constitutional Militia." The Constitution of the United States did not and does not provide for or create any militia. The 2nd Amendment does mention militia in a prefatory clause, but that is only a passing recognition that militias already existed in the several states.

Secondly, the Constitution makes no mention of "Committees of Safety," so how do you arrive at the conclusion that such are a necessary prerequisite to establishing a legally-recognized militia?

Thirdly, the unorganized militia exists under Federal law -- the same Federal law that recognizes and defines what constitutes the militia under Federal law. And the Militia Act makes no mention of Committees of Safety as a prerequisite for establishing a militia.

Before you set out to enact legislation to "revitalize" the militia, as you phrase it -- it would behoove you to do enough research to demonstrate that the militia doesn't already exist, or at least the that the legal framework for the militia already exists in state law.

I may not have made it abundantly clear at the start, so let me clear up any confusion (again?): I am on a road to understanding. Hopefully, understanding what was, and what can again be. I am NOT an authority on the subject. If you are, congratulations! You have more time to read than I. I will probably get there eventually, that is, if the Republic survives that long.

I only use the term "Constitutional" as a descriptive adjective. I know the proper name was "the Militia of the several States", and so does Dr. Vieira, BTW. According to him, the Constitution does provide for said "militia of the several states", not only in the tacit approval of it's acknowlegement of "the militia of the several states'" existance, but in the notations to follow below. 2A denotes that it was a forgone conclusion, true. (That's the amazing part of it for me, given the sorry state of it, and gun rights in general, currently) To my knowledge, militia pre-existed The Constitution here in PA by well over 100 years.

http://www.constitution.org/jw/acm_3-m.htm

- Vieira says;- (paraphrasing mine)

>>>The Constitution... [does expressly provide]... the means by which We The People can and must exercise the Power of the Sword: namely, "The Militia of The Several States"...

...Most obviously of all, the Second Amendment sets out the findings of historical fact and conclusion of supreme law, binding on eveyone thoughout the United States, that [a] well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and on that basis commands that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". The significance of this finding cannot be overemphasized. For THIS IS THE ONE AND ONLY TIME THE CONSTITUTION EXPLICITLY CITES AND RELIES UPON A PRINCIPLE OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY AND THE CUMULATIVE EXPERIENCE OF AMERICAN HISTORY TO JUSTITFY A RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE ("TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS"), AND A CORRESPONDING DISABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT ("SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED").

The means for assuring the deployment of "a well regulated Militia" in each state...appear in the power and duty of Congress "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. {US Const. art. I}<<<<

Obviously, much more and I'm not going to type it here because my typing leaves a lot to be desired.

The Committees of Safety may not have been mentioned in The Constitution, again predating the document, but their history is undeniable.

http://www.committeesofsafety.org/history

They were (my understanding) the guiding authority of, and the "go between" for, the Militia to the state and, soon to be, National (Federal) gov. Sitting here now, knowing what I know, teeth in mouth and elbow half-way up my arm, I can't say for sure one (we) couldn't organize and "revitalize" the Militia of the several States without Committees of Safety. That's just how it was deployed originally, and if no statutes remain on the books, just how better do you propose we go about the task without first acquiring the necessary legislation? If you go back to my OP, you'll see that WAS the purpose for my post, to find out if any laws pertaining to the Militia of the several States still exists.

I'm not looking for laws that say I can gather and do certain things, I'm looking for laws that affirm what history already tells us and provides the groundwork for "organizing, arming, and disciplining" as spelled out in The Constitution the way it is supposed to be, the way it used to be, the way it NEEDS TO BE. (emphasis mine)

As to "thirdly", Well this get deeper, because it is the root of the whole problem as it currently stands, IMHO. Congress enjoys no power whatsoever to create any such National "Militia". They are supposed to have the authority we give them, and most times they have the authority they can take (usurp). Through Federal, State and even sometimes local laws enacted, which many consider unConstitutional, we find ourselves looking at contemporary Congressional statue that deals with the Militia, and is fundamentally flawed, ie, the "organized militia", the "unorganized militia", The Militia act, etc. It's all counter to The Constitution and apparently historical fact. The Militia of the several States is the ONLY entity recognized as Constitutional, the rest being made of whole cloth through legislation. Is there a point of agreement there? In other words, because what has been enacated as law is widely regarded as being correct, doesn't automatically make it correct in the context of The Constitution. How do you feel about going off the gold standard and into the world of fiat reserve notes and deficit spending that has gotten us down the golden path we now walk? It's accepted, and it's the norm, but is it Constitutional because it's accepted? I heard somewhere that time makes more converts than reason. Think it's still true.

Granted, as I've already noted, Vieira's book has been my main source of inspiration to this point, mostly because of the constraints of time and circumstance. That doesn't make it an absolute, just as The Constitution was not recognized as an unchangeable absolute when written and ratified, and even to this day. My biggest beef isn't that the rules of the game can be changed, it's HOW they're changed, how The Constitution is constantly subverted and diminished. THAT is what has become the norm.

I probably haven't read everything you have. You probably haven't read "Constitutional Homeland Security" either. I cannot reprint everything in the book to prove my points. They make more sense than anything else I've read thus far. If you had read the book, I'm betting you'd agree. It is fully footnoted and referenced. I'm not sure why you've taken the point of view on this that you have, but you apparently have your reasons. I believe it is imperative that we go about this task correctly if we are ever to re-attain and keep the original meaning which will secure our Republican government. I don't see that happening with thousands of splinter groups with their own agendas. If you feel a need to point out that I'm a dumb ass along the way, feel free. What other people think of me is none of my business. If I need correcting, I'm all for accurate info, bring it on. I do believe, though, that we're supposed to be on the same team? I also believe that team's first order of business is not to overthrow the govenment, but to work for it's intended preservation.

I currently have an email to Scott Perry for some face time, hopefully for some answers, guidance, and perspective. Haven't heard anything back yet, and don't know if I will. If not, I'll go to plan "B". I can throw a rock and hit the roof of his office from my back yard. Maybe I'll try that next.