Michigan militia members arrested for planning kidnap of Governor Whitmire

[southernhybrid]

I didn't have time to check to see if this has been mentioned in this thread, so ignore me if I'm repeating something already discussed.

According to the person who wrote the linked opinion piece, the founders never met to endorse the type of militias that are popular today.


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/08/opinion/militias-gretchen-whitmer.html

Although these vigilante groups often cite the Second Amendment’s mention of a “well regulated militia” for their authority, history and Supreme Court precedent make clear that the phrase was not intended to — and does not — authorize private militias outside of government control.

Indeed, these armed groups have no authority to call themselves forth into militia service; the Second Amendment does not protect such activity; and all 50 states prohibit it.

The danger of these groups was brought home on Thursday with the announcement that the F.B.I. had thwarted a plot by people associated with an extremist group in Michigan to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and overthrow the government.

The court’s 1886 decision was reaffirmed in 2008 in Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. That case established that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms for self-defense, but “does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations.” Although there are many gray areas about Second Amendment rights, this is not one of them.

Which brings us back to the authority of the states. In addition to state constitutional and statutory schemes by which only the governor may activate “able-bodied” residents for militia service, other laws also forbid paramilitary activity and the usurpation of law enforcement and peacekeeping authority.

These militias aren't legal. They are more like terrorist groups than anything else.

 

[Elixir]

Plotting a terrorist attack is terrorism. They don't need to be successful to qualify.

Even if that is arguable, preaching sedition to a group of sycophants is sedition by definition. And it's a felony in the US.

 

[Treedbear]

...

These militias aren't legal. They are more like terrorist groups than anything else.

All well and good. But as you clearly stated they can still be referred to as militias despite not being sanctioned by law. They aren't more like terrorist groups than militias. They are unregulated terrorist militias.

 

[laughing dog]

Plotting a terrorist attack is terrorism. They don't need to be successful to qualify.

Even if that is arguable, preaching sedition to a group of sycophants is sedition by definition. And it's a felony in the US.

According to Mr. Barr's conspicuous silence on this specific case, sedition is for "antifa" protesters, not right wing militias.

 

[skepticalbip]

That's a pretty simple description of a militia. Washington's militia act of 1792 gets into a lot more specific as to what is required of militia members.



Were the above assholes enrolled?



Was any of this done?

That the said militia shall be officered by the respective states, as follows: To each division on Major-General, with two Aids-de-camp, with the rank of major; to each brigade, one brigadier-major, with the rank of a major; to each company, one captain, one lieutenant, one ensign, four serjeants, four corporals, one drummer, and one fifer and bugler. That there shall be a regimental staff, to consist of one adjutant, and one quartermaster, to rank as lieutenants; one paymaster; one surgeon, and one surgeon's mate; one serjeant-major; one drum- major, and one fife-major.

How about this?

That there shall be an adjutant general appointed in each state, whose duty it shall be to distribute all orders for the Commander in Chief of the State to the several corps; to attend all publick reviews, when the Commander in Chief of the State shall review the militia, or any part thereof; to obey all orders from him relative to carrying into execution, and perfecting, the system of military discipline established by this Act;

This?

That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States

Were these guys following the rules established by congress, or any other 18 to 45 year old?

There's a whole shit ton more requirements to be in the militia, such as required equipments, required musters and requirements to follow the laws of the USA. These assholes were just playing soldier. They were not anywhere near being a militia, organized or unorganized.

Designations of the organized militia and the unorganized militia have changed considerably over times from the late 1700s until today.

The current U.S. code can be found here:
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim

If you want to go with originalism, what I wrote above is what the founders meant by the requirements of being in a militia.

If you want to go with originalism then you have to read what the founders themselves said their intent was. They explain their intents quite clearly in The Federalist Papers where they explain the reasoning behind the sections of the Constitution. They didn't intend what you seem to believe they intended.
https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text

 

[ZiprHead]

That's a pretty simple description of a militia. Washington's militia act of 1792 gets into a lot more specific as to what is required of militia members.



Were the above assholes enrolled?



Was any of this done?



How about this?

That there shall be an adjutant general appointed in each state, whose duty it shall be to distribute all orders for the Commander in Chief of the State to the several corps; to attend all publick reviews, when the Commander in Chief of the State shall review the militia, or any part thereof; to obey all orders from him relative to carrying into execution, and perfecting, the system of military discipline established by this Act;

This?

That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States

Were these guys following the rules established by congress, or any other 18 to 45 year old?

There's a whole shit ton more requirements to be in the militia, such as required equipments, required musters and requirements to follow the laws of the USA. These assholes were just playing soldier. They were not anywhere near being a militia, organized or unorganized.

Designations of the organized militia and the unorganized militia have changed considerably over times from the late 1700s until today.

The current U.S. code can be found here:
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim

If you want to go with originalism, what I wrote above is what the founders meant by the requirements of being in a militia.

If you want to go with originalism then you have to read what the founders themselves said their intent was. They explain their intents quite clearly in The Federalist Papers where they explain the reasoning behind the sections of the Constitution. They didn't intend what you seem to believe they intended.
https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text

Is there one particular paper you'd like to cite? You might as well have thrown a 500 page book down and said "It's in there... somewhere."

There's some evidence the second amendment was implemented to allow the slave states to keep their slave patrols operational before they would join the nation.

 

[skepticalbip]

If you want to go with originalism, what I wrote above is what the founders meant by the requirements of being in a militia.

If you want to go with originalism then you have to read what the founders themselves said their intent was. They explain their intents quite clearly in The Federalist Papers where they explain the reasoning behind the sections of the Constitution. They didn't intend what you seem to believe they intended.
https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text

Is there one particular paper you'd like to cite? You might as well have thrown a 500 page book down and said "It's in there... somewhere."

There's some evidence the second amendment was implemented to allow the slave states to keep their slave patrols operational before they would join the nation.

I'm not going to read through all those essays again to find the particular ones that address the reason to guarantee an armed citizenry. But you really should read them at least once if you want to understand the how the U.S. was established.

I can give you a synopsis of the reasons and you can check for yourself - and you really should read the The Federalist Papers at least once if you want to be an informed citizen and then decide for yourself if you agree or not with the founding principles.

The idea of an armed citizenry is that the founders did not trust a strong central government because history has shown that strong governments tend to become oppressive. They wanted the citizens to have the power to replace the government if it ever did become an oppressive force. They also wanted the citizens armed to help repel an invasion by foreign forces.

The American Revolution could not have been successful in ousting the British (that they saw as having become oppressive) if the American citizens had not been armed.

 

[bilby]

Is there one particular paper you'd like to cite? You might as well have thrown a 500 page book down and said "It's in there... somewhere."

There's some evidence the second amendment was implemented to allow the slave states to keep their slave patrols operational before they would join the nation.

I'm not going to read through all those essays again to find the particular ones that address the reason to guarantee an armed citizenry. But you really should read them at least once if you want to understand the how the U.S. was established.

I can give you a synopsis of the reasons and you can check for yourself - and you really should read the The Federalist Papers at least once if you want to be an informed citizen and then decide for yourself if you agree or not with the founding principles.

The idea of an armed citizenry is that the founders did not trust a strong central government because history has shown that strong governments tend to become oppressive. They wanted the citizens to have the power to replace the government if it ever did become an oppressive force. They also wanted the citizens armed to help repel an invasion by foreign forces.

The American Revolution could not have been successful in ousting the British (that they saw as having become oppressive) if the American citizens had not been armed.

The American Revolution could not have been successful if the British had made winning a priority, no matter how many guns the rebels had.

And had the American citizens not been armed, they would have been thrown back into the Atlantic by the natives.

Even if an armed citizenry were effective as a bulwark against tyranny in the 1780s (and it really wasn't), it assuredly wasn't by the end of the Civil War.

What makes a modern army better than a bunch of civilians isn't weapons; It's organisation, discipline, and logistics.

The English lost the Revolutionary War because there was insufficient support for it back home, where the French threat was a far higher priority than a handful of distant colonies.

 

[skepticalbip]

Is there one particular paper you'd like to cite? You might as well have thrown a 500 page book down and said "It's in there... somewhere."

There's some evidence the second amendment was implemented to allow the slave states to keep their slave patrols operational before they would join the nation.

I'm not going to read through all those essays again to find the particular ones that address the reason to guarantee an armed citizenry. But you really should read them at least once if you want to understand the how the U.S. was established.

I can give you a synopsis of the reasons and you can check for yourself - and you really should read the The Federalist Papers at least once if you want to be an informed citizen and then decide for yourself if you agree or not with the founding principles.

The idea of an armed citizenry is that the founders did not trust a strong central government because history has shown that strong governments tend to become oppressive. They wanted the citizens to have the power to replace the government if it ever did become an oppressive force. They also wanted the citizens armed to help repel an invasion by foreign forces.

The American Revolution could not have been successful in ousting the British (that they saw as having become oppressive) if the American citizens had not been armed.

The American Revolution could not have been successful if the British had made winning a priority, no matter how many guns the rebels had.

And had the American citizens not been armed, they would have been thrown back into the Atlantic by the natives.

Even if an armed citizenry were effective as a bulwark against tyranny in the 1780s (and it really wasn't), it assuredly wasn't by the end of the Civil War.

What makes a modern army better than a bunch of civilians isn't weapons; It's organisation, discipline, and logistics.

You are right that leadership, organisation, discipline, and logistics is paramount. The armed citizens' militias were organized into an army and lead by Washington. They wouldn't have been very effective, however, if they had not been armed... and some with better weapons than the British troops. The Kentucky long rifle was a much better weapon than the Brown Bess musket carried by British troops.

The English lost the Revolutionary War because there was insufficient support for it back home, where the French threat was a far higher priority than a handful of distant colonies.

Again, you are probably right. England's leadership problem was that they didn't take the revolutionaries seriously (only a few colonial yokels) so didn't commit to putting down the revolution with sufficient force. Underestimating the enemy is a common fatal flaw.

 

[Treedbear]

...
The idea of an armed citizenry is that the founders did not trust a strong central government because history has shown that strong governments tend to become oppressive. They wanted the citizens to have the power to replace the government if it ever did become an oppressive force. They also wanted the citizens armed to help repel an invasion by foreign forces.

The American Revolution could not have been successful in ousting the British (that they saw as having become oppressive) if the American citizens had not been armed.

They knew both sides of oppressive government policies. The other reason (and I'd reckon the main reason even though it wasn't officially admitted to) is that many colonists, and probably mainly the wealthy and powerful ones, wanted access to the lands inhabited by the existing native population. George Washington and others had made huge investments in lands that were declared as out-of-bounds by the British. The British were trying to maintain some measure of cooperation with the Indians and had confiscated the weapons and ammunition of settlers in western Pennsylvania about the same time that the Continental Congress was taking place in Philadelphia. The settlers over ran the fort and took back the weapons. More than anything they wanted the ways and means to murder the Indians and take their land. The idea that it was about defending against foreign aggression is but a fig-leaf.

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^ ^
Well gee.... I guess it is hard to argue with someone who is capable of reading the minds of those who have been dead for two hundred years to discover that their motives are contrary to the motives and intent they wrote in painstaking detail.

 

[Treedbear]

^ ^ ^
Well gee.... I guess it is hard to argue with someone who is capable of reading the minds of those who have been dead for two hundred years to discover that their motives are contrary to the motives and intent they wrote in painstaking detail.

It has something to do with an awareness of colonial history and basic human nature. But it's hard to argue with politicians.

ETA -

 

[Worldtraveller]

Is there one particular paper you'd like to cite? You might as well have thrown a 500 page book down and said "It's in there... somewhere."

There's some evidence the second amendment was implemented to allow the slave states to keep their slave patrols operational before they would join the nation.

Federalist No. 29

Concerning the Militia

From the Daily Advertiser
Thursday, January 10, 1788

Author: Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York:

THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "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 MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."

Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.

It goes on from there, but it basically defines militia, as used in the 2nd amendment, to mean the equivalent of the national guard today. It does NOT mean the local mouthbreathing knuckledgraggers in bad cosplay that don't know how to safely handle firearms.

 

[Deepak]

It goes on from there, but it basically defines militia, as used in the 2nd amendment, to mean the equivalent of the national guard today. It does NOT mean the local mouthbreathing knuckledgraggers in bad cosplay that don't know how to safely handle firearms.

It really needs to be underscored that the militias at the time of the Revolutionary war up through the establishment of the Regular Army were county level regiments that were organized under their individual states and were led by the officers of the militia appointed by those subordinate governments. https://revolutionarywar.us/continental-army/massachusetts/ The idea certainly wasn't that some spontaneous eruption of violence among the populace would keep an army mobilized by the federal government in check, but state troops which could conscript from the populace if required.

The expectation was that the states could band together if the supreme central executive flexed its army, as they had in Europe, or that New Hampshire would send troops to assist Massachusetts if Virginia got delusions of grandeur. I certainly don't see anything about any random jackass with a grievance taking up arms and kidnapping a governor or crossing state lines to lend unsolicited security against property damage to horse & buggy dealers.

 

[Elixir]

I certainly don't see anything about any random jackass with a grievance taking up arms and kidnapping a governor or crossing state lines to lend unsolicited security against property damage to horse & buggy dealers.

Surely it's in there somewhere. I bet Amy can find it when it gets to the SCOTUS.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It is sometimes a good idea to let a story sit a bit before commenting. More details seem to come out that contradict earlier details.

It was a group of Trump supporters.
One of them was an Antifa anti-Trump guy.
They were planning on kidnapping.
They were planning a citizen's arrest.
The leader was an FBI informant trying to urge the rest to extreme action so the FBI could foil an FBI terror plot.

 

[Elixir]

It is sometimes a good idea to let a story sit a bit before commenting. More details seem to come out that contradict earlier details.

It was a group of Trump supporters.
One of them was an Antifa anti-Trump guy.
They were planning on kidnapping.
They were planning a citizen's arrest.
The leader was an FBI informant trying to urge the rest to extreme action so the FBI could foil an FBI terror plot.

So Trump was right all along!
Thanks to our "I'm not a trumpsucker" for proving his innocence!

 

[Harry Bosch]

It is sometimes a good idea to let a story sit a bit before commenting. More details seem to come out that contradict earlier details.

It was a group of Trump supporters.
One of them was an Antifa anti-Trump guy.
They were planning on kidnapping.
They were planning a citizen's arrest.
The leader was an FBI informant trying to urge the rest to extreme action so the FBI could foil an FBI terror plot.

Link?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Detroit Free Press - Defense says Gov. Whitmer kidnap plot was just 'big talk between crackpots'

Defense lawyers, meanwhile, argued that the government has only produced snippets of conversations in the case and that there is no evidence that the accused had any real plan to kidnap Whitmer. They said that it remains to be seen what roles the undercover informants and FBI agents played in the case, and whether they pushed the others into carrying out the plan, which in the end was foiled when FBI agents arrested five men during a setup on Oct. 7.

...

Springstead also said the use of an informant in the investigation to thwart the plot raises questions. Feds said an informant wore wires to meetings to record the men charged and collect information on the kidnapping plan.

“(I)t’s become an issue in certain cases where the informant pushes some of the information, and the court and the government and the defense attorneys have to be leery of that,” Springstead told reporters. “Because their job is not to assess what the government informant wants them to do, it’s to assess the accused’s intent and what they actually planned on doing.”

...

Still, defense lawyers contend that there was no probable cause to arrest and charge the suspects, arguing, among other things, that the suspects had no operational plan to do anything, were engaged in all legal activities — including talking in encrypted group chats and practicing military exercises with lawfully owned guns — and that it was the informants and undercover agents who "pushed" others to do illegal things.

"One of the most active leaders was your informant," Graham said.

The prosecution, of course, says the defense case is completely wrong, but it is the case they stated publicly.

Now you're probably going to accuse me of agreeing with the defense, but what else can I expect around here.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Detroit Free Press - Defense says Gov. Whitmer kidnap plot was just 'big talk between crackpots'

Defense lawyers, meanwhile, argued that the government has only produced snippets of conversations in the case and that there is no evidence that the accused had any real plan to kidnap Whitmer. They said that it remains to be seen what roles the undercover informants and FBI agents played in the case, and whether they pushed the others into carrying out the plan, which in the end was foiled when FBI agents arrested five men during a setup on Oct. 7.

...

Springstead also said the use of an informant in the investigation to thwart the plot raises questions. Feds said an informant wore wires to meetings to record the men charged and collect information on the kidnapping plan.

“(I)t’s become an issue in certain cases where the informant pushes some of the information, and the court and the government and the defense attorneys have to be leery of that,” Springstead told reporters. “Because their job is not to assess what the government informant wants them to do, it’s to assess the accused’s intent and what they actually planned on doing.”

...

Still, defense lawyers contend that there was no probable cause to arrest and charge the suspects, arguing, among other things, that the suspects had no operational plan to do anything, were engaged in all legal activities — including talking in encrypted group chats and practicing military exercises with lawfully owned guns — and that it was the informants and undercover agents who "pushed" others to do illegal things.

"One of the most active leaders was your informant," Graham said.

The prosecution, of course, says the defense case is completely wrong, but it is the case they stated publicly.

Now you're probably going to accuse me of agreeing with the defense, but what else can I expect around here.

Holy cow. I had no idea. Good job digging that up. Since defense attorney's have no interest in spin, I'll buy everything that they said as gospel. They of course would have no reason to mislead!