Photos Emerge Of 10 "Active Militia Teams" Securing The US-Mexico Border

Tyler Durden's picture

With 1000s of illegal immigrants crossing the US-Mexico border every day (perhaps even more now some of the border has been washed away), the government quietly dumping them in Tennessee (among other places), and current (recently constructed border protection infrastructure already breaking down), it appears the American people are taking matters into their own hands. Photos showing dozens of members of militia groups on the U.S.-Mexico border carrying semi-automatic rifles and wearing masks, camouflage and tactical gear provide one of the first glimpses into the group's activities on the border. The groups, including Oathkeepers, Three Percenters and Patriots, began recruiting and organizing more than a month ago and recent Facebook entries provide more color on their perspective: "You see an illegal. You point your gun dead at him, right between his eyes, and you say, 'Get back across the border or you will be shot.' ...We are not worried about an 'International' incident."


It appears the American people is growing frustrated as the government's inaction... or in some cases action...

As Fox reports, the Obama administration recently released 760 illegal immigrant children to sponsors in the Volunteer State without any warning, the governor charged.


There was not so much as a text message or tweet.


“It is unacceptable that we became aware via a posting on the HHS website that 760 unaccompanied children have been released by the Office of Refugee Resettlement to sponsors in Tennessee  without my administration’s knowledge,” the governor wrote in a strongly-worded letter to President Obama.


The Office of Refugee Resettlement says sponsors are typically a parent or relative who can care for the illegal immigrant child while their immigration case is processed. All sponsors are required to undergo background checks.


It’s also unclear why the ORR is handling the children – since they are illegal immigrants and not refugees.


It’s been the Obama administration’s standard operating procedure to release the illegals into states without notifying local or state government officials.

And the current government-provided border protection infrastructure is already breaking down...

An unusual amount of rain that ravaged parts of southern Arizona also knocked down 60 feet of the rebar-reinforced steel fence that divides the U.S. and Mexico.



The storms began Friday in Sonora, Mexico, and resumed Saturday night until Sunday morning, when debris from the Mexican side of the border traveled through a wash and piled up against the border fence. The fence, just west of the Nogales-Mariposa Port of Entry near Interstate 19, stood between 18 and 26 feet high and extended at least 7 feet underground.




The fence was built in 2011. It is constantly monitored by agents because smugglers and others who attempt to cross illegally routinely try to breach or knock down parts of it.


"It had a lot of water behind it, and it just pushed the fence straight down," said John Hays, floodplain coordinator for the Santa Cruz County Flood Control District. "If you're fencing is tight enough to catch debris, it basically becomes a dam. It's not meant to withstand those loads of water."


Hays said the fence appears to have floodgates, but they did not open.

So a number of locals have taken the challenge upon themselves. As Chron reports, photos showing dozens of members of militia groups on the U.S.-Mexico border carrying semi-automatic rifles and wearing masks, camouflage and tactical gear provide one of the first glimpses into the group's activities on the border.

Members of the militia groups, who say they have 10 active "teams" along the state's southern border, are seen at campsites, walking along the Rio Grande River, pointing rifles and pistols out of frame and flipping off the camera in the photos obtained by the San Antonio Express-News.


A spokesperson for the group provided the photos under the condition that members' faces be blurred because of fear of being identified by "cartel and gang members."




The groups, including Oathkeepers, Three Percenters and Patriots, began recruiting and organizing more than a month ago, as national media outlets began focusing on an influx of Central American immigrants illegally crossing the border, including more than 50,000 unaccompanied minors.




Some Facebook comments from members of the militias indicate the groups are not fearful of using force.


"(Rules of Engagement) is if in fear of bodily injury, weapons free, if fired upon, return fire. Real simple," member KC Massey posted along with a photo on Facebook. "We are not worried about an "International" incident if they shoot at us."


In an interview with the Express-News, Chris Davis, commander of the militia's "Operation Secure Our Border: Laredo Sector", who is seen in some of the photos, said members would secure the border in a "legal and lawful manner."


However, in a since-deleted 21-minute YouTube video of Davis, he said: "How? You see an illegal. You point your gun dead at him, right between his eyes, and you say, 'Get back across the border or you will be shot.'"

State Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, denounced the militia groups in a statement, saying "pointing guns at children solves nothing."

"Local law enforcement and federal border patrol agents have been clear. The presence of these outside independent militia groups does nothing to secure the border; it only creates an unsafe situation for law enforcement officials that are protecting our communities. Unfortunately, the vile rhetoric of my opponent inspires misguided efforts," said Van de Putte, who is running against state Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, for lieutenant governor.

See more images here...



See more images here...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
syntaxterror's picture

They don't have to worry about accidentally running into border control agents do they?

knukles's picture

Not until Obie orders the Border Patrol back to the border to protect the "innocent" illegals streaming across.

ACP's picture

So when do they get blamed for shooting down a commercial airliner?

Slave's picture

The only good guys left. False flag incoming.

Comte de Saint Germain's picture

Most likely agent provocateurs under the DHS/FBI payroll

The upcoming Executive Orders are going to be broader and drastic in scope -too bad for the so-called militias.

Moreover, the Second Amendment was never indented to give the right to ordinary Americans to keep and bear arms; instead, the Sovereign decides who qualifies for such privilege and the language of this amendment is extremely clear (except for those who don’t understand semantics)

Amendment II

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.

Slave's picture

So "people" is not ordinary Americans?

The "militia" is not ordinary Americans?

Do you know anything about the American Revolution?

That kool-aid must be some strong shit.

What's next? "well regulated" means bureaucratic regulation?

Comte de Saint Germain's picture

Define the following:

  •  Militia
  •  Regulated militia
  • A well regulated militia


Slave's picture

...........pasted from elsewhere..........Christ almighty man...........

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only NOT the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.


Go read Federalist Papers #46 and take your statist bullshit elsewhere.

EDIT: Also, upvoting yourself is for fags.

Comte de Saint Germain's picture

militia (md-lisb-a), n. (16c) 1. A body of citizens armed and trained, esp. by a state, for military service apart from the regular armed forces .• The Constitution rec­ognizes a state's right to form a "well-regulated militia" but also grants Congress the power to activate, organize, and govern a federal militia. U.S. Canst. amend. II; U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 15-16. See NATIONAL GUARD

Militia Clause. (1918) One of two clauses of the U.S. Constitution giving Congress the power to call forth, arm, and maintain a military force to enforce compli­ance with its laws, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 15 and 16.

Black's Law Dictionary 9th Ed


Cls. 15 and 16—Power over the Militia
Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militi according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Calling Out the Militia
The States as well as Congress may prescribe penalties for failure to obey the President’s call of the militia. They also have a concurrent power to aid the National Government by calls under their own authority, and in emergencies may use the militia to put down armed insurrection. The Federal Government may call out the militia in case of civil war; its authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and to carry on war. The act of February 28, 1795, which delegated to the President the power to call out the militia, was held constitutional.1584 A militiaman who refused to obey such a call was not “employed in the service of the United States so as to be subject[p.332]to the article of war,” but was liable to be tried for disobedience of the act of 1795.

ACP's picture

So by that logic, without the second amendment, the US would've lost WWII because the government wouldn't have been authorized to create a "militia"?

I think I understand now...


...the absurdity of progressivism.


UP Forester's picture

10 U.S. Code 311:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.   Most states, the top age is even higher for mandatory organized or unorganized militia.  What isn't stated is where the arms come from, for one very good reason:  YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BRING YOUR OWN!
Divine's picture

This is amazing! So if they have around 30 to 35 million illegals now, who wish to become citizens of the United States. Then the black barrack can set up a federal militia of 10-15 million illegals.

Stackers's picture

Obvious Chechen terrorist. You can tell because they are wearing mask.

TeamDepends's picture

Hey St. Germain, you just got your ass handed to you by the ZH militia.  Do you understand it now?  Real-life experience always trumps paper hypotheses.

SWRichmond's picture

"I have yet to meet an enemy in this country that would tell you that the sight of a long gun within a unit on the ground is not an unnerving one."

The scoped rifle the gentleman is carrying in the last photo is not a beginner's rifle (caliber, not paint job) and is well suited to the terrain, though is it also not a very expensive one, nor is the scope.

TeamDepends's picture

"We need to have a civilian national security force, just as strong, just as well funded as the military..."

-Barry Obongo Amin, summer 2008

TeamDepends's picture

Troll junks only make us stronger.

PirateOfBaltimore's picture

Even more important to note is section (b): 

(a) is the "organized militia" (not "regulated")

(b) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


"Militia" broadly includes all able bodied males > 17 < 45, the "organized" subset of which involves the national guard, the "unorganized" being the rest of that group - i.e. normal Americans.

Reset's picture

The meaning has been twisted in recent years by statists such as yourself. Imagine that. 

PT's picture

Now you just need border guards patrolling Wall St and DC.  Don't let anything in.  Don't let anything out.



You can kill as many pawns as you like.  The game don't end until the king is threatened and cannot see any way to escape.  (Unlike all the other pieces, the king doesn't even have to die).

TheMeatTrapper's picture

@Comte de Saint:

I'm the militia. And I'm armed. What the fuck you going to do about it? 

barre-de-rire's picture

pop corn & watch you kill your similars ..?


in fact looking an animal armed with a gun saying he is milicia for freedom while he voted for a nigger twice then blaming his .gov to misacting..... is just...medically....pathological relevent.


there is not treatment.


what happen to US society is fully deserved.

Mabussur's picture







Your posts (all of them) are eyesores and bring nothing worthy.

Bonus : L2STFU.

TheReplacement's picture

Now that is the truth of the matter.  Carry on.

Dewey Cheatum Howe's picture

Shit for brains wrong. The idea of a well regulated militia comes from the writings of Andrew Fletcher and Abraham Stanyan.

From Fletcher


A good militia is of such importance to a nation, that it is the chief part of the constitution of any free government. For though as to other things, the constitution be never so slight, a good militia will always preserve the public liberty. But in the best constitution that ever was, as to all other parts of government, if the militia be not upon a right foot, the liberty of that people must perish. The militia of ancient Rome, the best that ever was in any government, made her mistress of the world: but standing armies enslaved that great people, and their excellent militia and freedom perished together. The Lacedemonians continued eight hundred years free, and in great honour, because they had a good militia. The Swisses at this day are the freest, happiest, and the people of all Europe who can best defend themselves, because they have the best militia.

I have shown that liberty in the monarchical governments of Europe, subsisted so long as the militia of the barons was on foot: and that on the decay of their militia (which though it was none of the best, so was it none of the worst) standing forces and tyranny have been everywhere introduced, unless in Britain and Ireland; which by reason of their situation, having the sea for frontier, and a powerful fleet to protect them, could afford no pretence for such forces. And though any militia, however slightly constituted, be sufficient for that reason to defend us; yet all improvements in the constitution of militias, being further securities for the liberty of the people, I think we ought to endeavour the amendment of them, and till that can take place, to make the present militias useful in the former and ordinary methods.

That the whole free people of any nation ought to be exercised to arms, not only the example of our ancestors, as appears by the acts of parliament made in both kingdoms to that purpose, and that of the wisest governments among the ancients; but the advantage of choosing out of great numbers, seems clearly to demonstrate. For in countries where husbandry, trade, manufactures, and other mechanical arts are carried on, even in time of war, the impediments of men are so many and so various, that unless the whole people be exercised, no considerable numbers of men can be drawn out, without disturbing those employments, which are the vitals of the political body. Besides, that upon great defeats, and under extreme calamities, from which no government was ever exempted, every nation stands in need of all the people, as the ancients sometimes did of their slaves. And I cannot see why arms should be denied to any man who is not a slave, since they are the only true badges of liberty; and ought never, but in times of utmost necessity, to be put into the hands of mercenaries or slaves: neither can I understand why any man that has arms should not be taught the use of them.

By the constitution of the present militia in both nations, there is but a small number of the men able to bear arms exercised; and men of quality and estate are allowed to send any wretched servant in their place: so that they themselves are become mean, by being disused to handle arms; and will not learn the use of them, because they are ashamed of their ignorance: by which means the militias being composed only of servants, these nations seem altogether unfit to defend themselves, and standing forces to be necessary. Now can it be supposed that a few servants will fight for the defence of their masters' estates, if their masters only look on? Or that some inconsiderate freeholders, as for the most part those who command the militia are, should, at the head of those servants, expose their lives for men of more plentiful estates, without being assisted by them? No bodies of military men can be of any force or value, unless many persons of quality or education be among them; and such men should blush to think of excusing themselves from serving their country, at least for some years, in a military capacity, if they consider that every Roman was obliged to spend fifteen years of his life in their armies. Is it not a shame that any man who possesses an estate, and is at the same time healthful and young, should not fit himself by all means for the defence of that, and his country, rather than to pay taxes to maintain a mercenary, who though he may defend Mm during a war, will be sure to insult and enslave him in time of peace. Men must not think that any country can be in a constant posture of defence, without some trouble and charge; but certainly it is better to undergo this, and to preserve our liberty with honour, than to be subjected to heavy taxes, and yet have it insolently ravished from us, to our present oppression, and the lasting misery of our posterity. But it will be said, where are the men to be found who shall exercise all this people in so many several places at once? for the nobility and gentry know nothing of the matter; and to hire so many soldiers of fortune, as they call them, will bechargeable, and may be dangerous, these men being all mercenaries, and always the same men, in the same trusts: besides that the employing such men would not be suitable to the design of breeding the men of quality and estate to command, as well as the others to obey.




Dewey Cheatum Howe's picture

pg 19 /159 in the pdf


Abraham Stanyan’s Account of Switzerland (1714) described, “a well regulated Militia, in Opposition to a standing Army of mercenary Troops, that may overturn a Government at Pleasure.”

He portrayed the Bern militia as consisting of “the whole Body of the People, from sixteen to sixty,” explaining:
    Every Man that is listed, provides himself with Arms at his own Expence; and the Regiments are all armed in an uniforme                 manner, after the newest Fashion; for which Purpose, there is an Officer called a Commissioner of Arms , whose Business it  is, to inspect their Arms and Mounting, to take Care they be conformable to the Standard, and to punish such as fail in those Particulars.

The Swiss experience figured prominently in the American Revolution and afterwards in American constitution building. In his Defence of the Constitutions (1787), a survey of ancient and modern republics and other political models, John Adams divided the Swiss cantons—regardless of whether they were “democratical” or “aristocratical”—as having two institutions of direct democracy: the right to bear arms and the right to vote on laws. Bern had a democratic militia system: “There is no standing army, but every male of sixteen is enrolled in the militia, and obligated to provide himself a uniform, a musket, powder, and ball; and no peasant is allowed to marry, without producing his arms and uniform. The arms are inspected every year, and the men exercised.”


You can't have a militia to defend your home and neighbors/community/state/country unless the people can be armed in the first place and to be 'well regulated' they have to be armed in a uniform manner. If we had a government that believed in this they wouldn't be militarizing the police forces but giving those weapons out to law abiding citizens and training them to use them just in case.

It is just stating a natural right to self defense for the individual on up.

Divine's picture

Finnish guy's still need to serve 6 to 12 months in the Finnish defence forces. I quess that's why we still have our independence after ww2. We still can't store our rifles at home as they do in switzerland but trained guys usually don't freeze in panic.


Still we have the 4th largest private gun ownership ratio in the world per capita. ~2,4 million private guns for 5 million people. Switzerland is at number 3.


Has anyone of you had the pleasure to fire finnish RK-62 (M62) / RK-95 TP (M95)?


Every guy here can disassemble and reassemble these for under 30 sec :)





zhandax's picture

Fuck the arguments of trolls trying to reinforce the trashing of the Constitution. Your tax dollars at work.

mc225's picture

those 20mm ATRs are koo

PirateOfBaltimore's picture

Wait, 4th highest gun ownership rate, but you don't have a fuck ton of mass murders?  I thought guns were the problem?!


No, it's broken American culture that's the problem.  It's inner cities where demanding "respect" outweighs things like "the natural right to self defense" and the non-aggression principle...

25or6to4's picture

Love those Finnish arms. I personally own two KP-31s, a M -38 and a Lahti 9mm pistol. Do you guys have any 20 mm M39s you could send my way? Kiitos paljon

Trogdor's picture

"Has anyone of you had the pleasure to fire finnish RK-62 (M62) / RK-95 TP (M95)?"


Looks like a milled-receiver AK-variant with some well-thought out improvements.  I haven't fired the RK-62 per-se, but I've fired similar variants.  AK's aren't the most accurate beasts out there, but it takes a hell of a lot to make them *stop* working.  Personally, I'm partial to the AK-74 ;)

UP Forester's picture

RK-62s are fun to shoot, and built more solidly than the AK.

Pro-tip: when fresh out of the box and 'cleaned' of cosmoline, make sure you have eye protection.  Trust me, you didn't get all the cosmoline out....

Moloch's picture

downvoting facts. Way to go ZH. Facts are not wanted here, I see.

Urban Redneck's picture

No. We are down voting someone who is attempting to present that the Earth is flat and that the Sun revolves around the Earth as "fact".

It isn't and only a troglodyte could confuse his presentation with fact.

N2OJoe's picture

You seem to be confusing Troglodyte with Paid troll and/or vested interest in the staus quo.

To Tyrants, the truth is something to be stamped out or twisted 180 degrees.

Urban Redneck's picture

Troll or troglodyte, they both live under rocks.

If the Tyrants are sending professionals, instead of useful idiots, then they should send professionals worthy ZH.

A debate over how much "well regulated" owes its origin to the drunken discharge of firearms versus those "special" rednecks who went full-auto with their AK47's and then realized their neighbor's M16 musket balls wouldn't fit in their fancy ferner weapons, or that fat kid who always complained and couldn't hit the broad side barn at 20 paces is at least interesting, and can be supported by the mountains of historical evidence.

TheReplacement's picture

Simple facts for the chitlins.  Disarmed means potential for Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Red China, or any other mass slaughter of civilians.  Armed means civilians have the means to prevent their own slaughter.  Ask any of the 100,000,000 people murdered in the name of socialism over the past 100 years if they prefer disarmed or armed.  Oh wait, you can't because they were disarmed and now they are dead.

Anyone who argues for strict England-style gun control or outright disarmament is simply pushing for the power of a dictator to slaughter his or her people.  Some might call that conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity.


Urban Redneck's picture

Dimwit: the definition of militia goes back goes back well over 1000 years (hint: fyrd, leding, leidang, etc). In the War of 1812, who do you think was fighting the mighty British Royal Navy with the latest military artillery?

Or to quote myself:

For the legion of low-intellect lefties who want to demonstrate their stupidity by quibbling about the English language meaning of "well-regulated" I would recommend reading the works of Fletcher (1698) and Stanyan (1714) beforehand.

Then read the correspondence between Mason and Washington regarding the Virginia Militia. Back then, gun-toting rednecks worldwide brought their own black guns, powder, and high-capacity bags of balls, along with their own BEER for the weekend chug & shoots. The Virginian officer corps had a predilection for RUM (which created some desires for slightly better "regulation" among those with responsibility for victory). However, to this day in Switzerland, while most of the black rifles are paid for by the State, the gun-toting rednecks still have to bring or buy their own ammunition and BEER at the range (outside of certain State-sponsored parties where some brass is included with the price of admission).

Well-regulated doesn't, and never did, mean what most people think it means (but then Vizzini was a pompous asswipe)


EDIT There's also Eliot's Debates, which details ad nauseam many of the nuances of the actually debate over the text and ramifications of Second Amendment through the various State ratifying Conventions. Or if you want to go really hardcore Virginian, there is David Robertson's Debates and Other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia, convened at Richmond, on Monday the second day of June, 1788, for the purpose of Deliberating on the Constitution recommended by the Grand Federal Convention, to which is prefixed the Federal Constitution

Copies of both books should still be available from the Google Plagiarization & Intellectual-Property-Theft bot.


danke vielmals. I didn't have those two in soft-copy, now I do.

Elliot's Debates- The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

Debates and other proceedings of the Convention of Virginia

A discourse of government with relation to militias (1755)

An Account of Switzerland: Written in the Year 1714 (English Version)

Edit: WHY FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION IS SO IMPORTANT AND USEFUL -- this was easy to find since "fyrd" or anything else relating to militia as far back as Alfred the Great just is so popular on ZH:

from May 2013 (with appearances by Francis Sawyer, Joyful, Ghordius, tip e, and a bunch of the other usual suspects)


I could also be a dick and whip out the DICK ACT from 1902 or the Selective Service Act of 1917 for a more recent affirmation by the US Congress and signed by the US President as to who is included in the militia is... (both of these acts have been more recently revised and updated by Congress, yet the defintions contained therein remain the law of the land to this day

EDIT: For the extremely ill-informed readers, the reason Virginia actually is more important that other States in regards to the Second Amendment is because the entire Bill of Rights was basically plagarization of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (the preamble to the Virginia State Constitution, but since people were well read if not also well educated back in the day, this went without saying)

Husk-Erzulie's picture

Absolutely outstanding post.  Thank you for this effort sir.

Ghordius's picture

UR, outstanding source gathering. Yet for us non-US-citizens, am I correct in the assumption that the free militia in the photographs is not to be considered as covered by the 2nd Amendment? Mainly because there is an established and functioning chain of command going up to the governor and the commander in chief, and this free militia is not attached to it?

At least this is the way I understood it, i.e. that the US Constitution (particularly the 2nd amendment) grants the specific freedom to form a militia (particularly in cases where waiting for a call is not possible or smart)... followed by a duty to subordinate this militia asap to the US Authorities (which in this case would probably sent the free militia back home)

wtf1369's picture

Such is life when "leadership" is derelict in its duties. Eventually the people subject to the sharp end of that dereliction take matters into their own hands.

gwiss's picture



May I suggest you consider the US Constitution from the perspective that it was written?  Imagine that there IS no Federal Government.  No central authority.  And imagine that this document that you are helping create is the agreement that you are making with other states.


From this perspective, your sentence "At least this is the way I understood it, i.e. that the US Constitution (particularly the 2nd amendment) grants the specific freedom to form a militia" is backwards, in that the Bill of Rights was never intended to be a list of freedoms that the Federal Government grants to the people.  Instead, the Bill of Rights is aimed squarely at the Federal Government -- not at the people.  It functions as a "Do Not Trespass" sign that delineates exactly how much space the Federal Goverment has been granted to operate, within which the Federal Government is sovereign, and outside of which the Fedral Government has no more say than a peanut vendor. The Bill of Rights is not a moat that protects US citizens from the Federal Government.  It is instead a fence that is supposed to keep the Federal Government safely inside its enclosure so that it can't hurt the citizens or take over the country.


Thus, the Federal Government did not GRANT the states or the people the "right" to bear arms or the "freedom" to form a milita -- they already had that ability and that freedom and therefore that "right" before they themselves formed the Federal Government and tasked it with taking care of a few specific duties on their behalf.  Instead, the Bill of Rights makes clear that the Federal Government has no right to interfere with this process IN ANY WAY, as a well armed and self organized people are the best defense against tyranny.



Ghordius's picture

gswiss, I fully agree that the perspective is one where historically the militias were not federal. Yet they were state militias, weren't they? Note that I inserted the governor in between of the chain of command

further, it's the federal constitution we are talking about, isn't it?

anyway, fine, let's take your point as valid. the freedom of forming the militia. fine. and then? my point is: what if the Governor and/or the US President tell them: Thank you guys, well done, now go home? this is the point you and all the others are tiptoing around

You are Swiss, aren't you? There the case is much more clearer to me. If a militia would not go home after being asked to by Swiss State or Federal Authorities... well, then it's a rebellion. In fact, it's even a rebellion if the Canton (aka Swiss State) is backing the militia but the federal authorities aren't

Uncle Remus's picture


my point is: what if the Governor and/or the US President tell them: Thank you guys, well done, now go home?this is the point you and all the others are tiptoing around

We go home when we are good and ready. The point is, we do not answer to the Feds and given the current state of Federal subservience at the state level, they too would likely be told to piss off. 


EDIT: Of any local government offical likely to be heeded, it would be a constitutional county sheriff - an elected office.

Urban Redneck's picture

That's much more concise and to the point than my answer way down below. Thanks

Where would the Federal government even get the right to order a band of private citizens to cease and desist in the first place? (unless they were engaged in interstate commerce or something)

gwiss's picture

Gosh you're quick on the reply!  Is there some way to get notified about responses to comments that I don't know about?

To really understand the Constution from the perspective it was written, we also have to imagine the environment that these people lived in.  There were towns, but an awful lot of isolated hamlets and loosely dispersed population.  Very difficult to exert any central control over.  Central authority was therefore difficult to impose, whether we are talking about Federal or State.  Milita could be and was organized in some places by state dictate, but in most places was organized on the initiative of locals, controlled and run by locals, and answering to no specific chain of command.  It was the result of local people banding together to protect and defend and organize themselves.


If a state governor appeared and told them to go home, then whether they should or not depends on the agreement the citizens of that particular state forged with each other when they created the sovereign entity of their state government, which owns (or at least, should own) all land not privately held, and enforcing that should be up to that particular state. If the US President, on the other hand, tells them to go home, then according to the Constitution, they should tell him to go pound sand, because he has no authority to dictate this to them.  The US armed forces are not allowed to operate on US soil against US citizens.  They are only allowed to operate on US soil against encroachment/attack from foreign forces.


That was the purpose of the Posse Comitatus act, to forbid Federal troops from operating within the country.  Unfortunately, it has been watered down with the Enforcement act of Eisenhower, which allows Federal government troops to enforce aspects of the US Constitution if state authorities are unable/unwilling to do so, which means that all a sitting president has to do is declare state authorities unable or unwilling and he is then off to the races.  It has been further watered down to the point of being meaningless by the exclusion of the Coast Guard, I don't see that there is any specific mention of whether the Department of Homeland Security is restricted by it, and the NDAA gutted it completely by giving the Federal Government the right to exert martial authority over "A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."


So, where does that leave us?  The intent was that the Federal Government should, for the most part, STFU and stay out of it.  But in the end, as the Civil War demonstrated, all of the good intentions in the world can't restrain the hunger for central authority to get larger and exert its power deeper and deeper into the lives of the citizens, and what the Big Dog wants, the Big Dog will take.


Which is the whole point of the Second Amendment. 


God forbid it ever comes to that again.

Ghordius's picture

I have trouble imagining (federal) General Washington fighting the Brits, ordering a battaillion of free militia to clear the way for a flanking manouver of his troops and politely listening to them telling him to STFU and go away, to be frank ;-)

interesting views, thanks for the answer, I'll beg UR to answer too, it might be even more enlightening. no, I just happened to see your reply on the right-side bar, where I often "fish" for interesting comments

Uncle Remus's picture

I'm not the UR you're looking for (inarticulate rabble that I am), but GW and the militia were on the same side. It was a rebellion. I can understand foreigners not fully understanding the gravity of the 2nd Amendment or what the implications are of the higher profile of the militias in the US right now. I cannot excuse Americans for not understanding the gravity of the 2nd or their individual responsibility for their own liberty or upholding the Constitution, oaths or lack thereof notwithstanding.

EDIT - If  we're talking a "Red Dawn" type scenario, then yes, the militia would likely be more inclined to listen to formal military channels. As it is, we are dealing with a domestic issue, plain and simple.