Cal-gunners Militia

[Satmary]

Count me in!

It's very simple.

• The Militia is made up of Individual Citizens.
• The Individual Citizens are individually sworn to defend the constitution of the United States.
• The Individual members are bound by Federal and State Laws in the same manner that civilians are -- no more, no less

When you work out the details, count me in. PM me to discuss what I have to offer the group.

Molon Labe,
Will

[fortdick]

.... Per Einstein for every action there is an equally opposite reaction.

I always thought that was Newton.

[fortdick]

I thought that was sir Isaac Newton... I may be wrong...

Sorry, I missed this.

Maybe Einstein said it right after the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

[obpwankel]

Metal gear, metal gear....

Outerheaven?

[adrenaline]

Hrm good question.

A deft prosecutor could logically make the following argument: Assuming they are the unorganized militia, they seem to be organized by working together (they hold drills, etc). They also refer to themselves as an organization on their own website. Thus, this makes them a paramilitary group because they practice with weapons (marksmanship and light infantry drills it says on their website) and therefore subject to PC 11460. They specifically disavow any reporting to the Governor or Congress or the President, this means they cannot be part of the organized militia. This is of course the purpose of 11460, to avoid groups not reporting to any duly elected official.

They clearly state they are not bigots, or racists, and will accept everyone. I think this is to avoid the history of paramilitary organizations in California such as AN, California Rangers etc.

So I really don't know if they are illegal or not to be honest. I think they should be able to do what they want as long as they don't harm anyone or plan violent overthrow of our duly elected government.

We aren't racist bigots. That's true. We do accept everyone. (I'm Filipino myself)

If we were called up by the Governor or the Feds we'd do what we need to to help defend and protect. However, if we were asked to do something unconstitutional....I assume we'd operate the same way as most enlisted military would (defying orders). I personally would if called up to disarm Americans (as just an example).

We focus on training with knowledge passed from those that have it to citizens that don't...they in turn pass it on and the cycle of training continues. Unlike what you see on television, prepping is NOT a focus. There is disaster training though and part of that requires forms of prepping and survival education. There is also first aid, water rescue training, definitely firearms training, battle drills, trapping, etc. Some of us are even participating in C.E.R.T. to train others to become supporting individuals for local disasters.

We've been visited by the Feds before, and they've declared us a purely defensive organization.

I support a CG Militia, Cal Militia, defensive network, etc. (whatever you want to be well regulated aka well trained).

As long as you aren't a para-military group training people how to place bombs to hurt the most people you can, you are ok in my book. This country should have more citizens trained to help others, help themselves, and not necesarrily be dependent on government in the case of a catastrophic event.

Or even worst case, a very serious threat to our liberties.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Arguments against training as a group (militia or whatever you want to call it) and the necessity of it....it is essentially the same liberal arguments I hear for the necessity of having an AR-15.

If you can't see it, search deeper.



Don't like training as a well regulated militia? Don't do it.

- CSM Sacramento Platoon, 3rd Squad

[rootuser]

Your right as far as I'm concerned. I think PC11460 disagrees with you, but probably will never be enforced as long as a member doesn't do something stupid. The minute they do, you can assume the state will break you up simply because what you do, meets the definition of paramilitary organization by statute. I think PC11460 is wrong and should be re-written. Our old right-wing William Potter Gale screwed everything up for everyone to come by anointing himself militia.

Question: You said you would disobey the disarming of Americans. I applaud you for this stance, however for the sake of conversation, if you were ordered by the Governor during a period of unrest to disarm some OTC or Four One Five members who took control of an apartment building, would you?

We aren't racist bigots. That's true. We do accept everyone. (I'm Filipino myself)

If we were called up by the Governor or the Feds we'd do what we need to to help defend and protect. However, if we were asked to do something unconstitutional....I assume we'd operate the same way as most enlisted military would (defying orders). I personally would if called up to disarm Americans (as just an example).

[a1c]

No, the Militia is an organization whose members are individual citizens able to provide their own firearm(s), ammunition and other personal equipment, and who are willing -- should there be a need -- to step up in defense of the Constitution of the United States. The leaders are simply community organizers whose leadership is based entirely upon the willing and conscientious following by the membership. They do not have any actual corporal or lawful authority.

The organization simply provides the framework to reach out to and contact such individuals.

Saying that this is illegal is saying that the following is illegal:-

1. Owning a Firearm (legally)
2. Owning Ammunition (legally)
3. Owning personal equipment and clothing
4. Declaring that one is able and willing to be contacted for service in defense of the constitution of the USA
5. Being on a list or membership role of such self-identified individuals

The law doesn't work like that. Let's assume A+B=C. Just because A and B are both legal, doesn't mean C is.

Check out for instance the concept of constructive possession. Or the charge of conspiracy.