Please teach a foreigner about the United States' Militias!

[Mindmaster]

Fair enough......


Like our Brit T/A these seem very proper, trained and of great value.


Yes......... these are the forces I am interested in learning about.


OK..... but what I cannot understand is this....... there seems to be no official proper training for the civilian militia. There does not seem to be any kind of field management or supervision, no uniforms, no insurance provision to protect from mistakes etc.


That sounds more like the National Guard...... yes?

As I mentioned, it's a complicated issue. Technically, any community can form a militia on demand. The only real stipulation is that it's for "lawful purpose", e.g. protecting people and areas. While all of that makes sense (insurance, supervision) none of that is actually specified anywhere. Ditto for the "training"... The volunteer is just that... Basically, just think of it as your modern day version of the peasant armies of the past where people either volunteered or were conscripted. It's really the same. They have various levels of training or none, but that's not a criteria in our law. National guard would be trained just like any regular solider though -- they go to the same boot camp and role training.

In fairness, a good percentage of our normal citizens are either ex-military or ex-police and even as a citizen they would be able to instruct the rest on some basic procedure. It's not like you got a bunch of crazy people with guns... There is always some informal leadership even when there appears to not be. Nearly every one of the active citizen militias is trained by one of those types of people or organized by them. Anyway, there is some training going on... It's just probably not as regimented. There have been many cases of citizen groups being trained by our regular military as well rather on-the-spot just so that basic rules are followed, etc.... many of them are fine with "peacekeeping actions" but had to be trained for search and rescue on the spot, etc, as well..

For example: Guardians of the Republic is mostly police, military, and fire people who travel to help in emergencies, etc.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Executive branch can command the militia.

Not these town civilian militias. They are not government, they are under no obligation to answer a call to arms. In fact, they often are at odds agaimst the government, threaten the government, many are Sovereign Citizens, and one did invade federal lands recently.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I think militias in the 18th century were informal groups of armed citizen who banded together for a common purpose. Often it was for common defense on the frontiers of the colonies. I suspect that this was because of the large territory and the relatively few number of regular British military (pre-independence) and the very small number of actual law enforcement personnel.

These days, those circumstances don't exist here.

 

[Curious George]

Not these town civilian militias. They are not government, they are under no obligation to answer a call to arms. In fact, they often are at odds agaimst the government, threaten the government, many are Sovereign Citizens, and one did invade federal lands recently.

I am not discussing any group that refers to themselves as a militia. I am only discussing the militia as used in the constitution

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I am not discussing any group that refers to themselves as a militia. I am only discussing the militia as used in the constitution

Thats not what the OP is discussing. The militia you mention is the Army National Guard. Militias like these are the ones the OP is talking about.
Oregon militia stand their ground but local residents want 'these thugs' gone

 

[Curious George]

Thats not what the OP is discussing. The militia you mention is the Army National Guard. Militias like these are the ones the OP is talking about.
Oregon militia stand their ground but local residents want 'these thugs' gone

No, it is not. The militia is all able bodied citizens, not simply the national guard or some group that chooses to refer to themselves as a militia

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, it is not. The militia is all able bodied citizens, not simply the national guard or some group that chooses to refer to themselves as a militia

No, its not. We are under no obligation or mandate to serve in any armed group that isn't the military, and even then as the law exists the only citizens who are eligible and required to register are all males (regardless of being able bodied - I myself had to register though I was later declined by the Navy due to my knees/shins) between the ages of 18 and 26. And even that is Constitutionally on thin ice as the Constitution prohibits involuntary servitude and federal law prohibits sex-based discrimination.

 

[oldbadger]

No, it is not. The militia is all able bodied citizens, not simply the national guard or some group that chooses to refer to themselves as a militia

You are correct. I am interested in the civilian militias as defined in the Constitution. Any other groups are sometghing else altogether.

I want to learn more about the civilian militia, is all.......

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are correct. I am interested in the civilian militias as defined in the Constitution. Any other groups are sometghing else altogether.

I want to learn more about the civilian militia, is all.......

The world we live in today isn't really reflected in the Constitution. When it was written, most towns did operate with a militia as Curious George describes, which is more congruent with Constitutional intent and original c9ntext of the language. Today, however, that is not the case and the official militia of the United States of America is the Army National Guard, with the states having the National Guard of their state to summon as a militia.
Everything else is, for the most part, are armed RW extremists looking for any reason amd excuse to open fire on their country.

 

[McBell]

List of militia organizations in the United States

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-15-16/the-militia-clauses

 

[Valjean]

I am not discussing any group that refers to themselves as a militia. I am only discussing the militia as used in the constitution

The militia in the constitution was different things in different states. They went round and round about the issue during the constituonal convention; heated arguments, many revisions, &c.


The amendment was always understood to be a state-controlled, organized militia. Usually a national guard or reserve army in the northern sates, and the slave patrols in the South.

In DC v Heller, though, (2008) the "well organized" clause was ignored, opening the way to the private militias and widespread gun possession we see today.
Thom Hartmann: Why we have the 2nd Amendment – and pervasive gun violence
How the Second Amendment's Militia Became Part of Today’s Standing Army

 

[Valjean]

List of militia organizations in the United States

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-15-16/the-militia-clauses

This article refers to the National Guard, an official branch of the military. When most people speak of militia organizations today they're referring to private paramilitary groups:
The Second Wave: Return of the Militias

 

[oldbadger]

The world we live in today isn't really reflected in the Constitution. When it was written, most towns did operate with a militia as Curious George describes, which is more congruent with Constitutional intent and original c9ntext of the language. Today, however, that is not the case and the official militia of the United States of America is the Army National Guard, with the states having the National Guard of their state to summon as a militia.
Everything else is, for the most part, are armed RW extremists looking for any reason amd excuse to open fire on their country.

I've heard about the RW extremists and read about them on extremist forums........ quite shocking. And their ideas about the World in general are beyond obtuse. Totally imprinted in to their ideals and beliefs.
That was a bit of a wake-up call for me.

 

[Curious George]

The militia in the constitution was different things in different states. They went round and round about the issue during the constituonal convention; heated arguments, many revisions, &c.


The amendment was always understood to be a state-controlled, organized militia. Usually a national guard or reserve army in the northern sates, and the slave patrols in the South.

In DC v Heller, though, (2008) the "well organized" clause was ignored, opening the way to the private militias and widespread gun possession we see today.
Thom Hartmann: Why we have the 2nd Amendment – and pervasive gun violence
How the Second Amendment's Militia Became Part of Today’s Standing Army

You are mistaken if you understand the militia in the constitution to be anything but all able bodied males, certainly now all able bodied citizens.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are mistaken if you understand the militia in the constitution to be anything but all able bodied males, certainly now all able bodied citizens.

The Constitution does not define or set standards for a militia. Amd most citizens, well over half the population, is currently under no obligation to serve, under no danger or risk of conscription, and many for bs reasons are disqualified from service.

 

[Curious George]

No, its not. We are under no obligation or mandate to serve in any armed group that isn't the military, and even then as the law exists the only citizens who are eligible and required to register are all males (regardless of being able bodied - I myself had to register though I was later declined by the Navy due to my knees/shins) between the ages of 18 and 26. And even that is Constitutionally on thin ice as the Constitution prohibits involuntary servitude and federal law prohibits sex-based discrimination.

While you may think the creation of the national guard and time has alleviated any duty that you have, it does not. If you are an able bodied citizen you are a part of the militia. If the president and Congress put forth a law requiring you to do x y or z as part of this duty, such a law would be constitutional and your failure to obey would be subject to lawful penalties.

Given the numerous forces at the government's disposal we can be confident that the liklihood of the government placing any requirements to fulfill this civic duty are very, very slim. That said, such a duty still exists. And, as a citizen you are bound to that duty.

Notably absent from the constitution is the government's authority to create or disband the militia. That is because under the constitution it is recognized that all able bodied citizens are the militia. It would take an ammendment to the constitution to remove this.

 

[Curious George]

The Constitution does not define or set standards for a militia. Amd most citizens, well over half the population, is currently under no obligation to serve, under no danger or risk of conscription, and many for bs reasons are disqualified from service.

Again, you may believe that there is no duty, you are simply wrong. That duty exists. That there is little likelihood of the government requiring you to act does not change the fact that they could and doing so would be perfectly legal.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Again, you may believe that there is no duty, you are simply wrong. That duty exists. That there is little likelihood of the government requiring you to act does not change the fact that they could and doing so would be perfectly legal.

Then provide your Constitutional evidence.
The only duty is that males, when they turn 18, have a short period of time to register for the SSS. They remain eligible for the draft until they are 26. Or if turns out they're trans or are known to have certain stigmatized mental illnesses then they are considered ineligible regardless of their actual ability to perform. (and even that is Federal law and not Constitutional law, which prohibits involuntary servitude).

If the president and Congress put forth a law requiring you to do x y or z as part of this duty, such a law would be constitutional and your failure to obey would be subject to lawful penalties.

That would be a new law that creates new stipulations then. As of now, the only ones who must register are males between the ages of 18 and 26. That's it.

And, as a citizen you are bound to that duty.

Actually, I don't. I am diagnosed with sever major depression (though people with it do regularly slip through). I was already turned down from service due to my knees down. And, because of Trump, because I'm trans then I don't have that duty on those grounds either. I'm also too old at this point in my life.
In reality, unless someone is a male between the ages of 18 and 26, there is no compulsion to serve. Their is no duty. There is no obligation.

Notably absent from the constitution is the government's authority to create or disband the militia. That is because under the constitution it is recognized that all able bodied citizens are the militia. It would take an ammendment to the constitution to remove this.

It does not. The Constitution does not define or regulate a militia. It doesn't define who may or may not serve. It assigns no policies or rules. It was "assumed" then that able bodied males would, but that was never a part of the Constitution.

 

[Curious George]

Then provide your Constitutional evidence.
The only duty is that males, when they turn 18, have a short period of time to register for the SSS. They remain eligible for the draft until they are 26. Or if turns out they're trans or are known to have certain stigmatized mental illnesses then they are considered ineligible regardless of their actual ability to perform. (and even that is Federal law and not Constitutional law, which prohibits involuntary servitude).

That would be a new law that creates new stipulations then. As of now, the only ones who must register are males between the ages of 18 and 26. That's it.

Actually, I don't. I am diagnosed with sever major depression (though people with it do regularly slip through). I was already turned down from service due to my knees down. And, because of Trump, because I'm trans then I don't have that duty on those grounds either. I'm also too old at this point in my life.
In reality, unless someone is a male between the ages of 18 and 26, there is no compulsion to serve. Their is no duty. There is no obligation.

It does not. The Constitution does not define or regulate a militia. It doesn't define who may or may not serve. It assigns no policies or rules. It was "assumed" then that able bodied males would, but that was never a part of the Constitution.

I understand that you do not like it, but you are indeed bound by such a duty. The constitution outlines government powers and limits to those powers.

You will have to understand how this document works before you can move forward with this. There is nothing within the constitution that prohibits the government from requiring you to fulfill your civic duty. Indeed, court decisions support the government's ability to call upon you. While you may feel that government cannot require anything of you because you are trans, or female, or even because the government made a previous decision regarding your ability to serve in a branch of the U.S. armed services, but you are wrong.

Given the government's interpretation against federal discrimination of individuals based on sex, the idea that someone could oppose or would oppose a government decision to include females based on the premise that militia used to refer to males is laughable. However, if the government sought to exclude females based on the constitution they would need to meet intermediate scrutiny. There is simply no way to do this: including females in the definition of the militia places no additional burden on the government. That is the government needn't call forth females, train females, or even provide additional resources to women. Each of these would be a separate discussion: the inclusion of females in the definition entails none of this.

The government needn't take you if you are a woman, they needn't take you if you are trans, they needn't take you if you have issues with your shins, but to assume they cannot is faulty.

If you have a disability that would rise to the claim that you are not able bodied, then you may have an argument. However, i dont know your medical history and even this would have to be disputed case by case, on the facts.

So yes, if you are an able bodied citizen you are indeed bound to a civic duty. You are a member of the militia and suggesting otherwise willnot change that. What is more, the government insisting otherwise short of a constitutional Ammendment, will not change that either.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I understand that you do not like it, but you are indeed bound by such a duty. The constitution outlines government powers and limits to those powers.

You will have to understand how this document works before you can move forward with this. There is nothing within the constitution that prohibits the government from requiring you to fulfill your civic duty. Indeed, court decisions support the government's ability to call upon you. While you may feel that government cannot require anything of you because you are trans, or female, or even because the government made a previous decision regarding your ability to serve in a branch of the U.S. armed services, but you are wrong.

Given the government's interpretation against federal discrimination of individuals based on sex, the idea that someone could oppose or would oppose a government decision to include females based on the premise that militia used to refer to males is laughable. However, if the government sought to exclude females based on the constitution they would need to meet intermediate scrutiny. There is simply no way to do this: including females in the definition of the militia places no additional burden on the government. That is the government needn't call forth females, train females, or even provide additional resources to women. Each of these would be a separate discussion: the inclusion of females in the definition entails none of this.

The government needn't take you if you are a woman, they needn't take you if you are trans, they needn't take you if you have issues with your shins, but to assume they cannot is faulty.

If you have a disability that would rise to the claim that you are not able bodied, then you may have an argument. However, i dont know your medical history and even this would have to be disputed case by case, on the facts.

So yes, if you are an able bodied citizen you are indeed bound to a civic duty. You are a member of the militia and suggesting otherwise willnot change that. What is more, the government insisting otherwise short of a constitutional Ammendment, will not change that either.

Then why are you unable to support this with Constitutional backing?
And keep in mind, it doesn't work by playing hypotheticals of what can happen. The law as it exists now is what we have and operate under, not what-ifs and things that not codified into law.