US Militia Movement

[Tombstone55]

Officials see rise in militia groups across U.S. - Yahoo! News

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Rcher]

Interesting read, but, to organize an orchestrated civilian militia would take resources of mass proportion and secrecy. Not to say that isolated groups could not form and rebel. I've been wrong before and in this case, I guess I will keep my stock of ammunition accessible and to the hilt. Even though I dont support what our leaders are currently doing in America, I still repect and honor what America stands for and believe in the constitution that our forefathers established. I hope that our constitution prevails.

[Freedom Doc]

Our "leaders" don't appear to respect or obey any part of the constitution that doesn't please them. How can the constitution of our forefathers survive if we the people don't make it happen?

Also, if our forefathers were around today, at what point would THEY have revolted? One would think long before now.

[ErnieNWillis]

I think this is only the beginning. Town hall meetings are becoming powder kegs waiting for the fuse to be lit. Even staunch democrats are getting very frustrated that their voices are not being heard (ignored) by the liberals they put in office in the first place. I believe the majority of Americans (dem's & Rep's) are fighting the same battle. In our hearts we are ALL Americans and can see this country being transformed in to something our forefathers fought so hard to keep from becoming. In the end the American people will prevail. I just hope that it doesn't resort to violence.

[Tombstone55]

Our "leaders" don't appear to respect or obey any part of the constitution that doesn't please them. How can the constitution of our forefathers survive if we the people don't make it happen?

Also, if our forefathers were around today, at what point would THEY have revolted? One would think long before now.

BINGO, Well said.

[JT]

I don't doubt that militias are on the rise, but I would like to see a more credible source for a report on them than...

Militia groups with gripes against the government are regrouping across the country and could grow rapidly, according to an organization that tracks such trends.

The stress of a poor economy and a liberal administration led by a black president are among the causes for the recent rise, the report from the Southern Poverty Law Center says

[Hopyard]

Our "leaders" don't appear to respect or obey any part of the constitution

This is simply not true. Every piece of proposed legislation is examined for constitutionality. If something passes which "might not be" constitutional it can be, and often is challenged, immediately by one group or another.

If something survives the court's review, then by definition it is constitutional.

We do not have unconstitutional governance. We have individual issues on which there are sometimes legitimate points of contention,
but so long as the courts exist, so long as the Supreme Court exists and is available to accept challenges, we have constitutional government.

We live in a very complex society with 300 million people from very many different backgrounds and with very many different points of view. Uncle can't please everyone all the time, and those who are unhappy inevitably look to the constitution to justify their viewpoint. Under the constitution there are only 9 people, a president, and the 535 members of congress whose opinion on constitutionality count. When Congress passes a law, a president signs it, and the courts reject a challenge, that law is fully constitutional.

[pcon]

While I am for people standing up for rights and freedoms, the groups they are referencing in the article are little more than home-grown terrorists. Timothy McVeigh, the OK City bombings...that wasn't a freedom fighter. That was a delusional mass killer.

[varob]

As long as we the people have the right to vote. We can and will govern this country.
After all, our rights are just an extension of what our elected officials and the supreme court say they are. should we loose our ability to elect our law makers in or out of office, then, and only then will I consider this option.

Our ability to vote is the foundation for freedom.

[InspectorGadget]

This is simply not true. Every piece of proposed legislation is examined for constitutionality. If something passes which "might not be" constitutional it can be, and often is challenged, immediately by one group or another.

If something survives the court's review, then by definition it is constitutional.

We do not have unconstitutional governance. We have individual issues on which there are sometimes legitimate points of contention,
but so long as the courts exist, so long as the Supreme Court exists and is available to accept challenges, we have constitutional government.

We live in a very complex society with 300 million people from very many different backgrounds and with very many different points of view. Uncle can't please everyone all the time, and those who are unhappy inevitably look to the constitution to justify their viewpoint. Under the constitution there are only 9 people, a president, and the 535 members of congress whose opinion on constitutionality count. When Congress passes a law, a president signs it, and the courts reject a challenge, that law is fully constitutional.

Judicial Review does not happen until after the fact, the wrong has to be done after the law is passed then is sent to the supreme court to see if the petitioner has standing to bring the case before the supreme court. Then the process starts for Judicial review. Just because a bill is made into law does not mean it is automatically constitutional.

judicial review (law) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Constitutional judicial review exists in several forms. In countries that follow U.S. practice (e.g., Kenya and New Zealand), judicial review can be exercised only in concrete cases or controversies and only after the fact—i.e., only laws that are in effect or actions that have already occurred can be found to be unconstitutional, and then only when they involve a specific dispute between litigants.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 can still be found unconstitutional at the Supreme Court (especially since Heller precident) to this day.

In the Lewis case the SCOTUS found that RKBA was NOT a fundamentl right, and only ruled on the specific issue of a Felon not being able to buy a firearm, but PL 90-618 has never come under full judicial review and in light of Heller can still be shot down in flames as being in violation of 2A.

Gun Control Act of 1968: Information from Answers.com

The Gun Control Act of 1968 received its first challenge in the Supreme Court in Lewis v. United States (1980). In that case the Court addressed whether the provision banning the possession of firearms by convicted felons was constitutional. The Court held that the right to bear arms was not a fundamental right and deemed the act's provisions constitutional because they had a rational basis and had relevance to the purpose of the statute. The Court also restated its earlier holding in United States v. Miller (1939): "[T]he Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.'" The political debate about gun ownership remains rigorous.

[ImaShepardRU]

Just because a bill is made into law does not mean it is automatically constitutional.

Amen.

[ErnieNWillis]

I believe trolls exist on this forum.

[mcp1810]

Is it just me or does it seem that they are assuming every militia group that forms is "anti government"? Is it not possible that some people might want to form militias along the same lines as our Community Emergency Response Teams? Couldn't a militia be formed simply with the intent of being able to secure your own neighborhood (like a neighborhood watch) when SHTF? Would that not be a militia in support of the government?

[M203Sniper]

I'm just saying

[Tombstone55]

This is simply not true. Every piece of proposed legislation is examined for constitutionality. If something passes which "might not be" constitutional it can be, and often is challenged, immediately by one group or another.

If something survives the court's review, then by definition it is constitutional.

We do not have unconstitutional governance. We have individual issues on which there are sometimes legitimate points of contention,
but so long as the courts exist, so long as the Supreme Court exists and is available to accept challenges, we have constitutional government.

We live in a very complex society with 300 million people from very many different backgrounds and with very many different points of view. Uncle can't please everyone all the time, and those who are unhappy inevitably look to the constitution to justify their viewpoint. Under the constitution there are only 9 people, a president, and the 535 members of congress whose opinion on constitutionality count. When Congress passes a law, a president signs it, and the courts reject a challenge, that law is fully constitutional.

I hope you are joking. No rights are given to the federal government unless they are stated in the Constitution. The gubment is involved in many things that are unconstitutional (property tax, state run schools, healthcare, social security, Taxation without representation, cash for clunkers, illegal search and seizure, etc).