Jump to content
MiguelCepeda

Which state has the governor and legislature that can most likely be flipped to the purest Constitutional Militia (for other states to consider)?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I am going to say South Dakota because Gov Kristi Noem is the only governor recognizing her constitutional limitations with the Kung Flu outbreak, and (2) the senate has a supermajority. Fight me on this.

 

Question: What is everyone's opinion to conduct a full-court Information Campaign to ask South Dakotans to SAVE THE REPUBLIC and petition their governor and legislature to establish by statute a constitutional militia as intended by the Founders? It would also include petitioning Dr Vieira to lecture/teach/mentor to get them there.

 

Assumptions:

(1) The campaign would involve all hands on deck on this website,

(2) creation of an Operations Order so that every state could uniformly conduct the Information Campaign,

(3) knitting a confederation of websites, organizations, and platforms of every conservative platform and organization to join the fight, 

(4) South Dakota militias would choose their leadership and take the lead with everyone else in support.

(5) Probably a minimum of one meeting per week by all the key players in an invite-only cell;  SITREPS published so that everyone else is kept up to date.

 

Listen to Dr Edwin Vieira defining the constitutional militia (2 mins):

 

 

If you need a longer treatise on the subject, Dr Vieira offers this one (54 mins, this should be mandatory review):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by MiguelCepeda
Assumptions added

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is, of course, the big, key, question for the militia movement.  And it's not an easy one to answer.

 

One the one hand, if the militias remain private bodies, with no state sanction, they are very vulnerable to the charge that they are, in effect, "private armies".

And most states outlaw private armies.  They have simply looked the other way where their miliitas were concerned, hoping that they would remain hobbies for men who enjoy playing soldier.

 

The fact that from time to time, crazy people emerge from the fever swamps of the Far Right, and blow things up and kill people, naturally attracts the attention of the media and the police. Some of these creatures have had a brief, peripheral associatin with the militia movement.  The mass murderer Timothy McVeigh, who killed 169 people in Oklahoma including 19 children, attended a few  meetings of the Michigan Militia, which his actions also helped kill.

 

Try as they may, the leftist 'Misleadia'  have never been able to show that the militia movement as a whole directly encourages murder and sedition, although a lot of ignorant rhetoric comes out of the movement, enough to give journalists something to craft articles, and even books around, designed to show that the militia movement is a clear and present danger to peaceful citizens. 

The vile Southern Poverty Law Center slyiy uses the phrases 'Far Right' and 'Anti-Government' to hint that we are violent white supremacists -- while ignoring their pals on the Left who show their attitude towards government by burning down police stations and setting police cars on fire.

 

The legal assault, in the event of a big Democratic win in November, is already being prepared: https://www.lawfareblog.com/armed-militias-are-taking-trumps-civil-war-tweets-seriously

 

The militia movement is politically primitive. How many militia units, or state groups, know the law with respect to their activities? How many are prepared in advance for the attempt to indict them for violating the 'no private armies' laws? How many could mount a propaganda counter-offensive, with public meetings, articles, videos, telling the truth about themselves? How many have spent some time cultivating journalists on local papers, so that they get at least a fair shot at having their side of the story presented?

 

[Side note: all of the legal arguments for outlawing the militia were prepared over twenty-five years ago, and assembled in this book:  The Limits of Dissent, by Thomas Halpern and Brian Levin.]

[Get it here:  https://www.amazon.com/Limits-Dissent-Constitutional-Civilian-Militias/dp/188083117 ]

 

On the other hand,  if the militias dissolve themselves, and join a state-sanctioned militia ... the individuals in it are now legally protected. The problem is, they are now under the direction and control of the state. And the states, like America as a whole, are going 'blue'.

 

So ... imagine an officially state-sanctioned militia in California, during the next riots.  Would the increasingly-left state government actually allow them to mobilize and deploy against rioters, who will be one of the Left's 'protected groups' and part of its voting base? It's hard to see how that could happen.

 

The problem facing us is not a military one. It's a political one. How do we respond to the fact that the Left is going to become the permanent, ruling power in our country?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Doug1943 said:

The fact that from time to time, crazy people emerge from the fever swamps of the Far Right, and blow things up and kill people, naturally attracts the attention of the media and the police. Some of these creatures have had a brief, peripheral associatin with the militia movement.  The mass murderer Timothy McVeigh, who killed 169 people in Oklahoma including 19 children, attended a few  meetings of the Michigan Militia, which his actions also helped kill.

 

https://reason.com/1996/08/01/the-militias-are-coming/

 

"The link between accused bomber Timothy McVeigh and the militia movement is based mainly on two pieces of information: First, he and his friend Terry Nichols attended two Militia of Michigan meetings–which, significantly, they were told to leave because they were advocating violence. Second, allegedly Mark Koernke, a short-wave radio personality who runs a mail-order business that sells militia gear, was seen with someone who looks like McVeigh. In addition, a Michigan talk show host supposedly said (he denies it) that the host's Rolodex listed McVeigh as a contact for Koernke. This evidence does not come remotely close to showing that militia members encouraged McVeigh to do anything illegal, let alone to perpetrate one of the most vicious mass murders in history."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, MiguelCepeda said:

 What is everyone's opinion to conduct a full-court Information Campaign to ask South Dakotans to SAVE THE REPUBLIC and petition their governor and legislature to establish by statute a constitutional militia as intended by the Founders?

I would want to see an opinion letter from a constitutional lawyer on whether having a state establish one by statute is necessary, if the state has the authority to do so, and if it is the smartest route to take.  I'd want to see a couple of these from a few different constitutional lawyers.  Of course that takes either money or finding people willing to write those opinions for free.

 

I could see an argument that the militia should be or is intended to be separate from the state as a check and balance. e.g. https://constitutionalmilitia.org/oxymoronic-unorganized-militia/.

 

The Militia Act exists and afaik hasn't been challenged.  I don't know that it needs to be, but in the context of that act maybe the militia should be separate from govt control and in the hands of the citizens as a check and balance.  I would want to see some opinions from actual constitutional lawyers though, because maybe there is some scenario where its a smarter chess move to pursue state sanctioning.  I see it as a direction fraught with peril though, and maybe opening a pandora's box.

 

IMHO pursuing state sanctioning or state partnership might be putting the cart before the horse a bit.  All of the activities you mentioned in your assumptions need to take place anyway.  I read your word document with your idea for organization and it seems like a good idea and that is another set of activities that need to take place regardless of whether a state partnership is pursued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, dragonghost said:

 

https://reason.com/1996/08/01/the-militias-are-coming/

 

"The link between accused bomber Timothy McVeigh and the militia movement is based mainly on two pieces of information: First, he and his friend Terry Nichols attended two Militia of Michigan meetings–which, significantly, they were told to leave because they were advocating violence. Second, allegedly Mark Koernke, a short-wave radio personality who runs a mail-order business that sells militia gear, was seen with someone who looks like McVeigh. In addition, a Michigan talk show host supposedly said (he denies it) that the host's Rolodex listed McVeigh as a contact for Koernke. This evidence does not come remotely close to showing that militia members encouraged McVeigh to do anything illegal, let alone to perpetrate one of the most vicious mass murders in history."

 

 

Whoa.... this information is gold dust.  I'll have to renew my subscription to Reason.

This is just the sort of information that we need to collect, collate, and assemble in a database of 'Myths about the Militia' which we then make available to all militia units and, when we have finished getting a database of all local (and national) newspapers in the US (and their journalists), make available to them.

 

I have acquired what must be the majority of books written on the militia in the US, most of them published about 20 or 25 years ago -- the great majority are of the scary "Be a good boy or the Militia will get you" type, but one or two are reasonable. I strongly suspect we shall see a new crop of them and we need to have a dozen or two dozen people who are willing to buy them on Amazon so they can leave a comment ... and roast them. And this is exactly the sort of solid factual information we need to do it with.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Author of the topic Posted
16 hours ago, dragonghost said:

I would want to see an opinion letter from a constitutional lawyer on whether having a state establish one by statute is necessary, if the state has the authority to do so, and if it is the smartest route to take.  I'd want to see a couple of these from a few different constitutional lawyers.  Of course that takes either money or finding people willing to write those opinions for free.

 

I could see an argument that the militia should be or is intended to be separate from the state as a check and balance. e.g. https://constitutionalmilitia.org/oxymoronic-unorganized-militia/.

 

The Militia Act exists and afaik hasn't been challenged.  I don't know that it needs to be, but in the context of that act maybe the militia should be separate from govt control and in the hands of the citizens as a check and balance.  I would want to see some opinions from actual constitutional lawyers though, because maybe there is some scenario where its a smarter chess move to pursue state sanctioning.  I see it as a direction fraught with peril though, and maybe opening a pandora's box.

 

IMHO pursuing state sanctioning or state partnership might be putting the cart before the horse a bit.  All of the activities you mentioned in your assumptions need to take place anyway.  I read your word document with your idea for organization and it seems like a good idea and that is another set of activities that need to take place regardless of whether a state partnership is pursued.

 

 

I think as far as constitutional lawyers go.....there is Dr Vieira...and everyone else. No one I've seen can touch him. As far as entertaining the consequences of it, I think being constitutional trumps all other considerations. We should endeavor to strive for what our fathers put in place and let the chips fall as they may: understanding we may never get to that goal; but we should be constitutionalist.

 

When I posted my 8 pager of Organizing the Unorganized Militia, I was on the side of, "Hey, it's in the US Code, so It's cool." But after listening to Dr Vieira's arguments in "Principles of a Constitutional Militia", I no longer am in that school of thought. I need to update that paper and post it. The colony controlled the militia before our nation was born (except in service to the Crown), and the militia belongs in the control of the state because it is a state agency, and it is compulsory. 

 

You are absolutely correct that everything I stated before....could be done present day; if the South Dakota militias wanted to go down that path.....it would be an interesting planning exercise and execution; one that has never been undertaken in the modern era. I imagine we would learn A LOT about the process, ideas via brainstorming, and where people are at as far as how they view militia.

 

But if we do it, we go all out. We leave nothing on the table. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Author of the topic Posted
19 hours ago, Doug1943 said:

This is, of course, the big, key, question for the militia movement.  And it's not an easy one to answer.

 

One the one hand, if the militias remain private bodies, with no state sanction, they are very vulnerable to the charge that they are, in effect, "private armies".

And most states outlaw private armies.  They have simply looked the other way where their miliitas were concerned, hoping that they would remain hobbies for men who enjoy playing soldier.

 

The fact that from time to time, crazy people emerge from the fever swamps of the Far Right, and blow things up and kill people, naturally attracts the attention of the media and the police. Some of these creatures have had a brief, peripheral associatin with the militia movement.  The mass murderer Timothy McVeigh, who killed 169 people in Oklahoma including 19 children, attended a few  meetings of the Michigan Militia, which his actions also helped kill.

 

Try as they may, the leftist 'Misleadia'  have never been able to show that the militia movement as a whole directly encourages murder and sedition, although a lot of ignorant rhetoric comes out of the movement, enough to give journalists something to craft articles, and even books around, designed to show that the militia movement is a clear and present danger to peaceful citizens. 

The vile Southern Poverty Law Center slyiy uses the phrases 'Far Right' and 'Anti-Government' to hint that we are violent white supremacists -- while ignoring their pals on the Left who show their attitude towards government by burning down police stations and setting police cars on fire.

 

The legal assault, in the event of a big Democratic win in November, is already being prepared: https://www.lawfareblog.com/armed-militias-are-taking-trumps-civil-war-tweets-seriously

 

The militia movement is politically primitive. How many militia units, or state groups, know the law with respect to their activities? How many are prepared in advance for the attempt to indict them for violating the 'no private armies' laws? How many could mount a propaganda counter-offensive, with public meetings, articles, videos, telling the truth about themselves? How many have spent some time cultivating journalists on local papers, so that they get at least a fair shot at having their side of the story presented?

 

[Side note: all of the legal arguments for outlawing the militia were prepared over twenty-five years ago, and assembled in this book:  The Limits of Dissent, by Thomas Halpern and Brian Levin.]

[Get it here:  https://www.amazon.com/Limits-Dissent-Constitutional-Civilian-Militias/dp/188083117 ]

 

On the other hand,  if the militias dissolve themselves, and join a state-sanctioned militia ... the individuals in it are now legally protected. The problem is, they are now under the direction and control of the state. And the states, like America as a whole, are going 'blue'.

 

So ... imagine an officially state-sanctioned militia in California, during the next riots.  Would the increasingly-left state government actually allow them to mobilize and deploy against rioters, who will be one of the Left's 'protected groups' and part of its voting base? It's hard to see how that could happen.

 

The problem facing us is not a military one. It's a political one. How do we respond to the fact that the Left is going to become the permanent, ruling power in our country?

 

 

God Bless Mr. Rhodes, but he has departed from his initial mission of educating and advocating, and now seems to be pursuing a national militia model, which is not constitutional. The Virginia Oath Keepers broke away and are independent from his organization-- which is interesting because he allows them to keep the name.

 

When the call was made to support businesses in Ferguson, MO I was adamant that it should only come from Oath Keepers in MO--- because the MO Constitution did not cover non-residents as far as firearms. People don't think about the LEGAL implications-- and that is another reason why the militia has to be established and regulated by state statute. Or you get your socks sued off. Or prison. Or both. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Author of the topic Posted

And Dr Vieira answers our questions in the video and gives the playbook on how to revitalize the constitutional militia. Most of the points I already had (because I read his book a few years ago):

 

 

 

Here are the steps that are laid out in his book, "Constitutional Homeland Security"

 

1. Establish semi-permanent groups to identify and organize homeland security groups/committees of safety/Citizens Homeland Security  in order to study, advocate, and petition for statutory reform (being the ultimate goal).

 

2. Educate people

3. Recruit people who will become activist.

4. Examine local conditions- peculiar homeland security problems and bring analysis of this problems and how they may be dealt with by a revitalized militia— to include how training will deal with them, to include natural disasters.

5. Reach significant political clout 7-10K activists to lobby county/state committees to put idea into draft statutes

6. Lobbying groups develop caucus to push hearings.

7. Present to legislators

8. Recognize the bill being voted on will take steps, rather than immediate compulsory requirement:

 

- the caucus will already have a large component of volunteerism

- bill would include a large number of exemptions

- heavy reliance on volunteers if the bill is passed, so there is immediate capability

 

9. If the bill is not enacted:

 

- the caucus will already have particular homeland security functions just by going through the process-- you would have still built a militia having gone through the planning process and recruiting

- you vote those out of office that opposed it, and replace them with YOUR candidates; rinse and repeat.

 

 

My 8-page plan takes care of 95% of this.....and INCLUDED developing soft power against the rising threat of Marxist.  I will re-write it to approximately 9-10 pages and re-post. 

 

So my question remains: 1. Is South Dakota the best state to give it a shot?

 

2. If that is the case, then will the Moderators approach the SD leadership on this site and ask them if they want to proceed?

We can support them, but we cannot do it for them.

 

Then to crank the numbers up, we name every militia/2nd amendment website that has a state page for South Dakota conservatives and send them and invite here.

I nominate Modern Militia Movement and Free Republic for starters. We keep adding more sites.  After the Committees of Safety groups are established, they follow the plan. Then we bring Dr Vieira into the conversation at some point in time by Zoom for mentorship and guidance. He stated in 2008 he would draft the bill for any state.

 

Lots to ponder.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...