Revitalizing the militia tradition?


PDA






mikearion
February 17, 2003, 11:50 PM
I would like to hear some thoughts on revitalizing a universally recognized militia tradition throughout the U.S. A militia in the context of modernizing the tradition to fit the world we live in today. A “security-network” of citizens that is supported by the general public is the concept.

With the assistance of a former Army Master Sergeant and U.S. Historian I have contributed to a militia charter system that could lay the basis for such a modernized tradition. The system could work as is but really needs more input from those that would support such a system.

Here is the link to the current charter construction I posted. Be warned the system is involved and takes a little reading to grasp the whole system.

http://geocities.com/mikearion/chsc

If you enjoyed reading about "Revitalizing the militia tradition?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
VaughnT
February 18, 2003, 01:13 PM
Well, that was definitely an interesting read! You are to be commended on the amount of time it must have taken to research and write that thing.

Personally, it sounded a lot like the State Guard. Would I join such an organization? Probably. However, it would have to be recognized by local, state and federal governments as something more than a good-ole-boy's club. The biggest hurdle is the lack of pay.

Like the volunteer fire fighters, you have to give up a lot of your time and energy to make this work. If you were tangibly compensated, it would be more interesting to a lot of people...but that contradicts the purpose.

Definitely an interesting idea.

cheygriz
February 18, 2003, 06:44 PM
A great idea, as long as it remains "well regulated" as the constitutoin rerquires. i.e., under control of the governor of the state.

An idea that is long overdue, IMHO

telewinz
February 18, 2003, 07:09 PM
The State of Ohio already has a STATE sanction militia, its called the Ohio Reserve. I almost excepted a commission from them a year ago but due to the long driving distances involved, wisdom won out over emotion and I declined. Its a very professional organization with a large contingent of prior military enrolled. If you live near Columbus or west of that city check it out. If they ever open a post within 50 miles of my home, I'll join.

MitchSchaft
February 18, 2003, 07:34 PM
as long as it remains "well regulated" as the constitutoin rerquires. i.e., under control of the governor of the state.

So "well regulated" means it has to be under the control of a State governor?

telewinz
February 18, 2003, 08:28 PM
being regulated by the state would go a long way towards keeping you out of jail.:uhoh:

4thHorseman
February 18, 2003, 08:42 PM
It must not be under the control or have involvement from the federal government.

mikearion
February 18, 2003, 11:14 PM
Actually "well regulated" had nothing to do with government "regulations" but rather the "method or form" of the militias. This is actually well known in the context of the 2nd amendment. Historic militias were never placed under state control except during an emergency. They were only local entities for community defense purposes. This tradition goes back to first English colonies. Just folks trained to protect themselves.

So "well regulated" doesn't translate to "under government control" in this context as some, suppose.

REG'ULATED, pp. Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions. Webster's 1828 Dictionary

States are not allowed to have full time paid armies but may only call the People. This was because the military was placed under control of the Federal government. So states made sure to add the 2nd amendment so that at least they could call on the People of their state. If the People were disarmed then they would have nothing at all, not even the police that also derives armed authority from the 2nd amendment.

Until the National Guard there is no history of full time state run paid militia in the U.S. Actually the National Guard is an Army reserve that was formed from militia but has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment at all.

I am always amazed how most folks do not understand this very basic history and the Constitution. This needs to be corrected.

cheygriz
February 19, 2003, 12:31 AM
I think that it is pretty well recognized by constitutional scholars that the "well regulated" portion of the Second Amendment meant that whenever the militia was ** "actively engaged in legitimate militia activity,"** whether actually fighting, engaged in training, or putting out forest fires, it would be under the control of constituted local authority, i.e., the governor of the state involved or his designated representative. This is true whether the "militia" is paid or unpaid volunteers. In most of our history, they were unpaid volunteers.


"Militia activity" by private individuals or groups not "well regulated" would fall under the definition of private armies, and not be covered by the 2ND Amendment.

While the founding fathers did not completely trust centralized government, they certainly didn't trust anarchists.

If you read their writings, and American history, they found anarchy to be anathema. Many anarchists were hanged in the 19th century!

MitchSchaft
February 19, 2003, 01:50 AM
Well regulated basically means well armed.
Has absolutely nothing to do with governmental control at all. Federal or State.

MitchSchaft
February 19, 2003, 05:13 PM
http://home.midsouth.rr.com/schaftlfam/pics/Misc/bump.gif

Apple a Day
February 19, 2003, 06:19 PM
I skimmed the whole thing.
Personally, I would favor something more oriented towards passing information and emergency relief help. Emphasis should be placed more on cell phones and comm. procedures than rank.
I liked the idea of the only uniform being a khaki shirt. Maybe throw in a local unit patch. I don't see the need for officers farther than a single "captain" and an executive officer. Members should be organized in loose squads depending on where they live, mostly due to ease of muster and communication. Each squad should elect their own squad leader.
Also, mandating what kind of firearms the troops should have seems snobbish and silly. A lot of folks would turn their noses up at a mini-14, anyway. I'd rather stick with an AR or AK variant by far. Each local unit should be encouraged to first have a common cartridge, then a common rifle due to ammo supply and spare parts issues. Group buys should be encouraged towards that purpose but not mandated.
I think mandating a cell phone would be higher on the list than a rifle, esp. of a particular type.
Range time should be encouraged but on an honor system. Again, local units should be encouraged to make bulk buys of ammo. Anyone finding good buys on the Internet should post prices and source towards that purpose.

I guess, in a way, sites like Highroad.org are a loose form of eMilitia [Hey, I just coined a new word!].

MitchSchaft
February 19, 2003, 06:31 PM
eMilitia, good one!http://www.gun-talk.com/ubb/graemlins/thumbsup.gif

blades67
February 19, 2003, 06:36 PM
I am always amazed how most folks do not understand this very basic history and the Constitution.

Remember, most people go to Public schools.:barf:

goon
February 19, 2003, 07:19 PM
Wow.
You have really put some thought into this. But I guess that is a good thing. I would join such an organization without hesitation. I think that it goes to the root of being an American.
I wouldn't expect any compensation for my time or effort, but it would be nice to have someone buy my practice ammo.:D
It would also be cool if you could work it so that militia service was a real activity that people couldn't have held against them, like the Army reserve. Most people wouldn't participate in an organization that would get them fired for missing work. But if the state said that militia service was to be excused, then that would be taken care of.
Also, why the Mini-14? I've heard/read that they are kinda lacking in accuracy and I also know that good hi-caps for them are expensive. Who wants to fight with 10 round mags?
But, I guess that if you were working for the state, then maybe you could get them to supply you with a few 30 rounders each.

Also, have you contacted anyone in government with your ideas?
If and when you get an answer, please let us know.

MitchSchaft
February 19, 2003, 07:28 PM
The mini-14 is still legal in CA.

Ian
February 19, 2003, 09:56 PM
Cheygriz - Non-state-regulated militias would be perfectly legal, by way of 1st Amendment freedom of assembly. The 2nd Amendment doesn't protect any militias anyway, it protects individuals' right to own weapons, primarily because militias are required for the security of free states (standing Armies being abhorrent to free states) and militias require armed citizens. The Supreme Court has interpreted it slightly differently (ie, the amendment only protects weapons a militia would use, US v Miller), but they're wrong on plenty of other issues too.

FWIW, I was reading reports of battles in the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, and apparently the Mujahideen rank system consisted simply of soldiers and "Commanders." The person in charge of a unit of any particular size was a Commander. In fights where multiple units were involved, the Commanders either worked together or chose an overall Commander for the battle. It seems to have worked fairly well for them.

Navy joe
February 19, 2003, 10:01 PM
"well regulated" -Think well armed and trained. Zilch to do with what the governor thinks. The various Guard organizations are not militias, they are reserve elements of the federal armed forces formed in the old manner, that is units come from common geographic regions. Having a master in the statehouse and one in DC is not my idea of a free people's militia.

mikearion
February 20, 2003, 10:38 AM
Notice rifle standard in mini-14 is only "suggested." Anything semi-auto in .223, .308 or 9mm is acceptable. The charter was updated to make this more clear.

http://geocities.com/mikearion/chsc

Chipperman
February 20, 2003, 12:56 PM
The biggest hurdle here is the negative connotation that our beloved media has given to the word "Militia". The meaning, like "Assault Rifle" has been twisted beyond recognition.

The Sheeple now think that militia members are paranoid anarchists who own a lot of guns, live in Wisconsin, and are plotting the downfall of the Federal Government. :uhoh:

MoonMan
February 20, 2003, 06:02 PM
Clearly, a lot of thought has gone into this document.

I think it doesn't allow the local units enough autonomy-- things like term of office for the Captain could be determined by each county's unit. Perhaps this master document could include an ultimate limit.

Such as: "...local unit would determine the term of office and limit the number of terms for the Captain. However, terms are never to exceed six years, and terms would never be permitted to exceed 3 consecutive terms or twelve consecutive years."

This is one of several places where the national orginization should allow the local units more autonomy than is granted by the current document.

Shweboner
February 20, 2003, 10:35 PM
The Sheeple now think that militia members are paranoid anarchists who own a lot of guns, live in Wisconsin, and are plotting the downfall of the Federal Government.

I thought they all lived in Idaho, not Wisconsin?:eek:

~brian

Strings
February 21, 2003, 02:24 PM
>militia members are paranoid anarchists who own a lot of guns, live in Wisconsin, and are plotting the downfall of the Federal Government.<

Two out of four: do I qualify? :what:

Sounds like an interesting idea, but I think a little less regimentation would be good. And I agree that a cell phone for this should be a higher priority...

Sam Adams
February 21, 2003, 03:11 PM
Mikearion said:

"

...So states made sure to
add the 2nd amendment so that at least they could call on the People of their state. If the People
were disarmed then they would have nothing at all, not even the police that also derives armed
authority from the 2nd amendment."

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with "granting authority" to anyone for anything. It is simply a prohibition on federal action. The RKBA existed prior to and independent of the USA or the federal government, and will outlive both. The RKBA is a law of Nature - it is self-preservation. Overturning the 2nd would only result in removing this prohibition, but would not make the seizure of arms legal.

The 2nd is a brake on the fedgov's power, not a grant of rights. Does your right to free speech depend on the 1st Amendment? Your right to worship?

MitchSchaft
February 21, 2003, 05:03 PM
I think some people need to do a little research on the 2A. That's twice in this thread it has been taken in the wrong context.

4v50 Gary
February 21, 2003, 05:40 PM
Guess I'm old fashion and I like fencibles better than Civilian Picket Guard Corps. The election of officers has some of the same problems both North & South faced during the wah-oh - that is, the election of popular but military incompetent officers. It also raises the issue of "competency" testing for officers to retain their ranks (this was done on both sides). During the frontier days, captains were elected on the basis of knowledge, skill and sometimes they could whup anybody else in their unit (Daniel Morgan comes to mind). Considering the nature of their warfare and the enemy involved, that's all that was needed. Modernly we have to be a bit more sophisticated in the selection of our leadership.

As to removal (court martial), if there is a vacancy, some of the boys will want to elect their own Ca-pi-tan as opposed to having some state body appoint one.

Should be health examinations too. If the CPGC gets called out, you don't want them dropping like flies on the march (drive, commute).

I'll sign up to be the cook. Anybody for a second heaping of hardtack? Death from within!

mikearion
February 22, 2003, 11:00 PM
I didn't mean to imply the 2nd amendments grants us any rights not already owned by natural God given law. This was spelled out in the Declaration of Independence as being “self-evident.” I believe firmly in the principle that the Bill of Rights only aims to insure rights we naturally own anyway.

Are we on the same page?

Mike

Oracle
February 22, 2003, 11:31 PM
Notice rifle standard in mini-14 is only "suggested." Anything semi-auto in .223, .308 or 9mm is acceptable. The charter was updated to make this more clear.

On your website, it reads: "Members are strongly encouraged to standardize. However, members that already own a high quality rifle before membership my forgo standardization requirements in favor of currently owned weapon. Members that do not own a rifle should always choose the standard."

Then, a little down the page, it reads: "Temporary Configuration: Members under the rank of Sentry-First-Class may train with any non-standard rifle, such as .22LR due to financial constraints for up to one year."

So, if someone shows up with an AK or and SKS (both of which, IMHO, are examples of a "high quality rifle"), and they are very well set up with that rifle and caliber, and meet all the other requirements, would they not be required to get a rifle in one of the "standard calibers", or would they have to do so within a year or to qualify for a higher "rank"? Not being a wiener, I just thought that part was a little unclear.


I do very much like the part that reads:

"Those advocating a religion or creed, which is clearly incompatible with United States Constitution, shall not be admitted as CPGC members. For example: A religious system or belief, that advocates a theocratic and non-secular form of government, is diametrically opposed to the constitutional mandate insuring the freedom to establish religion. Members cannot vow to defend the U.S. Constitution while at the same time having a conflict of interest, believing it should be abolished or replaced. This restriction includes but is not limited to extremist sects that have openly advocated the abolishment of the U. S. Constitution, as well as race based hate groups that have emerged in many forms representing many races."

The biggest problem that militias face in this country (IMHO), is their or their members association with theocrats and racially based "hate groups" such as Christian Identity. The militias are rife with people who want to overthrow this government and put up another one that would enforce their version of "God's will" or that believe that they are preparing for some kind of idiotic "race war". Most of the decent people that were associated with the militias that I've had experience with have simply left, driven out by the racists, anti-semites, and the theocrats. That's why I'd avoid the "militia" concept altogether. Like the Confederate Flag, it's been corrupted by the racists and other scumbags to the point that it's useless.

mikearion
February 23, 2003, 02:59 AM
"So, if someone shows up with an AK or and SKS (both of which, IMHO, are examples of a "high quality rifle"), and they are very well set up with that rifle and caliber, and meet all the other requirements, would they not be required to get a rifle in one of the "standard calibers", or would they have to do so within a year or to qualify for a higher "rank"? Not being a wiener, I just thought that part was a little unclear."

This section has been chopped up so many times it is unclear. We'll fix that. Basically, you can use anything you have but if don't have anything we would like to suggest mini-14 due to cost vs effectiveness vs PC value and so forth. If you insist on something else try to stay with .223, .308 or 9mm.

It's a guide not a mandate.

Regards,
Mike

If you enjoyed reading about "Revitalizing the militia tradition?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!