Civilian Militias....

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by yorkiepap, Feb 8, 2009.

  1. yorkiepap

    yorkiepap New Member

    Feb 7, 2009
    SW Pa.
    Hey guys/gals,
    New to the forum. My query is the establishment of civilian militias in any state. Are there any? Is it a legal facet of the civilian population to initiate a local, county, or statewide force of armed citizens to protect/enforce our constitutional rights?

    I lost my pap(92) last year and I can recall his words when he was still here: "I will not see, but you will, the revolution coming to this country." It has given me much to take into consideration. Your thoughts..... Denny
  2. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    Some states have a civilian Militia. Some states don't. Some states declare Militia activity tobe illegal, despite the laws of the United States to the contrary.

    In every state I am familiar with (which is NOT all of them) forming a Militia on your own without some government support, control and/or permission is illegal.

    That said, keep in mind that the Militia is not only a military force. The Militia was called upon to help diring disasters of all ilk. I know of several groups which formed to offer assistance during flood, fire, storm or such. The meetings were held fairly often at the local rifle range. The Zooby County Emergency Assistance and Reaction Team?

    I am not familiar with Pennsylvania laws, so I cannot answer the question specific to your situation.


  3. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Nov 19, 2008
    Akron, Ohio
    While I knew that militias had been the subject of scrutiny by the federal government I was not aware that they had been outlawed in any states. I wonder on what grounds they can be found illegal. Seems to me people have a right to join any group they want and train for whatever reason they want...something about the freedom of speech and the right to assemble comes to mind.
  4. ponycar17

    ponycar17 Active Member

    Feb 17, 2005
    South Carolina
    While I don't advocate the formation of such groups, I recall seeing that their numbers were at nearly 1,000 known militias while Clinton served in office, and dropped sharply to less than 100 or so after a couple of years of GWB. I can see the possibility, given these dire Constitutionally corrupt times, that the groups may reform to the levels seen in the latter 90s.

    I have never served in such a group nor would I intend to but I do see their presence growing based on past precedence.
  5. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Nov 19, 2008
    Akron, Ohio

    May I ask...why not?
  6. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    One might not advocate the formation without being against such groups.

  7. Doug.38PR

    Doug.38PR Member

    Oct 21, 2008
    North Louisiana
    +1. Why not? A peace officer in Louisiana told me it's illegal (and he personally would be all for them)
    I saw a G&A article a few years ago about militias. The article's main take on them was very selective. The only good militas are the ones that suck up to the U.S. government and agree to support it and aren't for any kind of independence from the government. IOW, it's only good for defending against foreign enemies, domestic ones cannot be resisted.:rolleyes:

    As long as a militia is formed by individuals and they abide by CONSTITUTIONAL laws of the state of ________, then they are (should be) legal. They are a right of self defense.

    EDIT: Apparently armedandsafe and I posted at the same time. The question still stands: Why wouldn't he be for the formation of such groups? Seems to me that's something we need. Not necessarily to attack anybody but to be there as a show of force that we are willing to defend our rights by whatever means necessary (IF worst comes to worst). Just like the Minutemen of Lexington and Concord
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2009
  8. ponycar17

    ponycar17 Active Member

    Feb 17, 2005
    South Carolina
    I think you're on it Pops. :) I wouldn't disavow anyone serving in such a group but also would not advocate the formation of such a group.
  9. SaddleSarge

    SaddleSarge New Member

    Aug 24, 2008
    RMT, (respectfully) Because as originally posted, it was posed as a means of official law enforcement, " protect/enforce our constitutional rights?"

    Protection, until the total collapse of the system occurs/happens via the ballot box. Enforcement is vicarious in that we have entrusted those, via legislation, to enforce the laws.

    I don't know about you all, but I will not submit to some dimwit-do-gooder professing that they are "enforcing the constitution." There are dangers on each side of that. "Lynching" was a past day term that comes to mind. ;)

    Even a local law enforcement officer must be cognizant of not only local and state statutes, but also face severe penalties/litigation for violation of constitutional statutes as well in any given situation (it can be as simple as searching someone's pockets without probable cause). I am not willing to give of myself to a group of untrained yet well meaning individuals in the enforcement of my constitutional rights.

    I am going to assume that the original thought here is in regards to a total breakdown of societal values, government, and/or order/anarchy that would preclude the necessities of such.

    Until such time, the ballot is our sword.
  10. ponycar17

    ponycar17 Active Member

    Feb 17, 2005
    South Carolina
    Sarge, if only our LEOs as a whole thought as you do, we'd be sleeping like babies. Your knowledge and defense of basic Constitutional thought is astounding with regard to current LEO mentality in some major cities. +100!! :D
  11. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Nov 19, 2008
    Akron, Ohio
    While I understand that one may not want to rely on the judgement of some non elected persons to protect their constitutional rights, it seems to me that each one of us as a citizen has a stake in doing whatever is necessary to protect and preserve those rights. Yes, there is always the risk that some well meaning people could be led astray of the law and the principles we hold dear, ultimately we are only as free as we insist we are and prove by our actions of defiance to those who would usurp our constitutional rights. Even though we have agreed to a system of government in which the majority rules, the majority does not have the power to deny the rights of the minority. When the elected officials violate the essence of the fundamental principles proclaimed in the constitution then the people in my opinion are released from obediance to the laws those officials pass. I believe in the law, but the law is subject to the constitution and the constitution is subject to justice and as the founding fathers stated, natures God. Were Washington, Jefferson, and Adams, vigilantes and criminals for rejecting the rule of England or were they patriots rebelling against tyranny? I imagine that is a matter of perspective. I am sure that those of us who would stand in opposition to unconstitutional gun laws would indeeed be criminals in the eyes of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and Schumer et al but that too depends on ones perspective.

    These are dangerous times in my opinion. The majority apparently no longer believes in many of the principles upon which this country was founded and under which it has thrived for over two centuries. There is sufficient reason to believe this is a result of a conscious conspiracy of enemies of our constitution and core values to infiltrate and indoctrinate our citizens in socialist thought. Assuming this is true, which is more lawless or unpatriotic; to gather together with like minded citizens to train for potential resistance to unconstitutional law, or to sit by and submit to those enemies?
    Even if the truth were there were no such enemies or conspiracy, what would there be to fear from a militia sworn to uphold the constitution if no one attempted to undermine it's principles? To me being an American citizen demands keeping faith with the founding fathers who put everything on the line for this nation, and for millions of others who have fought and died to preserve our way of life.
  12. SaddleSarge

    SaddleSarge New Member

    Aug 24, 2008
    I agree RMT, but the question was posed of, "protection/enforcement" as though there were synonymous terms.

    "Were Washington, Jefferson, and Adams, vigilantes and criminals for rejecting the rule of England or were they patriots rebelling against tyranny?" Overwhelmingly....YES!!! (Both ways! ;) ) But at what point does a section of the populace decide to partake in another "revolution" without the complete breakdown or tyranny over the society (as viewed by our founding fathers) and as history has dictated? And YES(!), the founders would have been found guilty of treason as Benjamin Franklin stated, "If we do not hang together, we shall most assuredly hang separately!" or; (from 1776) "A rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as "our rebellion." It is only in the third person - "their rebellion" - that it becomes illegal."

    But again, the point being as originally posed, "enforcement." When is the appropriate time that a section of citizenry deem it time to demand that their rights supersede those within their own system of government (of which we are seeing today) and "enforce" that historical idea(l) on the remaining populace? Of which can be argued either way.

    My point was that until the breakdown of this society, well meaning and untrained folk should not take it upon themselves in the area of "ENFORCEMENT," as originally stated in the question posed. That is why I stated that I believed that the point was from a stance of the breakdown of the system.

    One difference oft overlooked is the fact that we were separated from England by a vast ocean and not deemed a "civil war" since we were not fighting ourselves (more or less).

    Today, it would be described many ways from, "coupe," "civil strife," "civil war," "civil insurrection," "enemy combatants," (sorry, have to give a :rolleyes: on that one!) etc..., but in the long scheme of things, we each, as citizens, have to make a decision as to when that point has arrived and to what stance we are willing to and are going to take. It will be lesser for some and more extreme for others, while others will not take a stance. No different than in 1776. (Edit #3: The difference between then and today (if it were to happen today) is that there was an organization between neighbors, communities, states, with a public and interim civil government with a governing body. If what is being discussed was to take place, we would be looking at total anarchy for a time with no direction, and only the concept of self survival for one's ideals/beliefs initially and for some time.)

    God help us if that day ever does or even needs to arrive.

    (Edit): I can guarantee that there are many that believe in and support the constitution of the United States yet cannot describe to me all of the facets and nuances involving the 4th and 5th Amendments. Remember that the original theme of this discussion was within the realm of militia "enforcement;" otherwise a rogue, unregulated group answering to or organized by whom(?) vs the breakdown of that society held so dear by those that are willing to defend her.

    (Edit #2): Let us not overlook or confuse the incredible and vast differences between, "enforcement," and "defend."
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2009
  13. mrkirker

    mrkirker New Member

    Jul 13, 2007
    I don't know about you all, but I will not submit to some dimwit-do-gooder professing that they are "enforcing the constitution." There are dangers on each side of that. S-Sarge
  14. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    Quite a few years ago, while I was living in San Diego, The Crips and the Bloods decided to move in to our neighborhood. This was a small, bedroom community just North of the Naval Air Station.

    I bought half-a-dozen kid's walkie-talkies and set up a base station at my house. I visited selected neighbors and set up a meeting in the condominium meeting room.

    We each took certain times and days/nights when we would patrol the neighborhood. Each patrol had radio contact back to the base in my office, where there was a telephone line dedicated to call the police when needed. We wrote reports of what was seen during each patrol, copies of which were turned over to the local patrolman each day. We held monthly meetings, which quickly turned into potlucks and social gatherings. Some of the patrols were armed, I am sure, but this was San Diego County, California, so none of us had a CCW. However, I would hold a mini meeting once every quarter at the nearest indoor pistol range.

    We busted a number of drug operations and vandalisms in progress. We squashed several brewing "rumbles." We ran a very tight neighborhood, but the Navy and Marine personnel who lived in the area were not hasseled for their weekend parties.

    Just before I moved, one of the local patrol officers showed me graffitti on the backs of the stop signs surrounding our little ten-block square neighborhood. He translated them for me as signs from both the Bloods and Crips that our area was off limits.

    That, my friends, was a Militia.

  15. I fear that when the [​IMG] ... :eek:

    We'll all be too busy protecting our families & property.. [​IMG]

    from the looters & zombies to make Militia meetings ... [​IMG]

    [​IMG] [​IMG]
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum when was the first registration and tax stamp of a firearm to a civilian? Jan 20, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Militias Anyone? Nov 8, 2012
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Return of the Militias Aug 13, 2009