Militia Facts

The group is for comming up with questions about the Constitutional Militia, so we can answer them in an educated way for new people or curious people.

Members: 22
Latest Activity: May 28, 2018

Discussion Forum

What is a Militia?

Started by Gladiator 42/5/71. Last reply by Quisno Son of the republic Nov 12, 2012. 1 Reply

1: a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency   b : a body of citizens organized for military service2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens…Continue

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of Militia Facts to add comments!

Comment by STORM on April 24, 2017 at 9:43pm

i have been looking for some info on the next get together near Gig harbor, lakebay kpn area..

Comment by Gladiator 42/5/71 on December 30, 2013 at 5:20pm

Doc Bunny, It is my belief that our state constitution was designed to fail. The framers of the 1889 Constitution of the State of Washington were well aware of the Republican form of Government or they would have not started out the way they did in the 1878 attempt at the state constitution.

The one thing that the "Republican form of Government" does not have is what exactly the framers of the Constitution of the United States truly meant. Benjamin Franklin was well aware what a Republic and a Democracy was and warned us against Democracy. Meaning it is not the majority vote over others rights. That is where things get really confusing, because our state constitution is against our rights in many way. The state militia is a perfect example in how it was stripped from the people's rights and placed in government power. By twisting and stripping of rights from our natural Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States, it shows us that the State of Washington is not a Republican form of Government. If it were, it would need to be in compliance with the Constitution of the United States, before they even expanded on anything for the state.

As we all know, the states were suppose to be different as far as how the government part is set up. However, two of the duties of the state militia is to suppress domestic rebellion against the Constitution of the United States or the state constitution if it is in compliance or fight a tyrannical government. If people want to truly be Constitutionalists, we have to understand that not only is the state constitution not in compliance with the Constitution of the United States, by the state government following it and not wanting to change it, they become the domestic enemies and the tyranny we are suppose to fight and suppress. 

US Congress was also suppose to guarantee every state in the Union a Republican form of Government and protect it from domestic violence. From my research, they did not even look at the 1889 proposed state constitution and President Harrison just approved it. So, we have had that problem going on for 124 years. I asked National Archives what state constitution they were presented and all they had was the 1878 proposed one that they apparently thought was the 1889 state constitution. Not to beat a dead horse here, but how is US Congress suppose to guarantee every state in the Union is a Republican form of Government if they never got a copy for review? Also if a rebellion rose up in this state against the 1889 Constitution of the State of Washington and in defense of the Constitution of the United States, then the feds could not come down on the rebels in theory and the state coming down on them would show they were truly tyrants and the real rebels. Meaning, the reality is the "Republican form of Government" means the rule of law and the highest law of the land is the Constitution of the United States. Just my take though...  

Comment by Doc Bunny on December 30, 2013 at 12:19pm

It is important to understand exactly what the laws say.

The "Militias of the several states" are under the command of the "Commander in chief (of the Militias of the several states)" only when called into actual service of the Federal Government. This means that unless called into the service of the Federal Government, the President has no authority whatsoever over the Militias of the several states.

The State laws go even further than that. RCW 38.04.030 states that the Militia of the State of Washington has two components: the Organized Militia, what we refer to as the National Guard and the State Guard, and the Unorganized Militia- which is defined as  "all able bodied citizens of the United States and all other able bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, residing within this state, who shall be more than eighteen years of age". 

The State militia codes go on to state that the Governor has the authority to call out the Unorganized Militia, and when he does this he shall become the "Commander in chief".

This means that the Governor has no authority at all unless he calls out the unorganized militia.

In a Republican form of Government (which is what we have) the State and the Federal Government share equal power. This means that the Constitutions of the State and the Federal Governments are both equal and valid.

If the concern is about say, the right to keep and bear arms, both the Federal and the State Constitutions codify the right to keep them. The State Constitution recognizes this as an individual right. This means that any unit of the State Militia that did in fact mobilize to confiscate arms would be in violation of the Constitutions of the State and Country. They would become domestic enemies of the people and would become legitimate targets.

I know it's a long walk to  a short drop, but it's important to know what the law is. We are indeed a country of laws and not men.

Comment by Gladiator 42/5/71 on December 29, 2013 at 11:19pm

Union, We are a Constitutional State Militia and those are our marching orders from the founders. In the Constitution of the United States it clearly states that the President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the state militias when called into service of the United States. They key point there is the President of the United States better be defending the Constitution of the United States when he calls up the state militias. Now, that is where things get controversial, because President Lincoln called up the state militia ins service of the United States to suppress the southern rebellion, but it was not in defense of the Constitution of the United States primarily. At that point in time, slavery was legal and the North wanted it abolished. Obviously the situation caused a civil war, but both sides were wrong and right at the same time, but for different reasons. I will side with liberty and justice any time and against oppression. However, in the President calling up the state militias in service of the United States, it depends on the cause? I highly doubt you would find people wanting to fight for Obamacare and I wouldn't. 

Comment by Cascadia Corps on December 29, 2013 at 10:26pm

RE: Constitutional Militia ..Is there any concern that this form of organization could potentially lead to some type of conscription situation of True Militia Men and Women into compulsory service under one of the "commanders in chief"?

Comment by ADAM on November 25, 2012 at 9:33pm
I second this COS idea it sounds like a way to get your foot in the door with government management on a smaller scale. But you got to start somewhere.
Comment by ADAM on November 25, 2012 at 8:16pm
A very disturbing analogy. So we can't count on the state or federal level. Then we need the people. If we can change the view of the public then the government wont matter. Almost like we need a disaster so we can be first responders. This is all so hard to wrap my head around but there has got to be something. The messed up thing is that we have a right to a militia but then someone made amendments to those rights to say we don't have that right. Mandy we should start small. Like a Booth at the Buckley log show to raise awareness. Seriously the only sufferance between a militia and a search and rescue group is guns. That's the messed up thing. They want to limit our rights to where it is ok to come together to help someone as long as we don't carry guns...yeah I know I'm ranting now
Comment by Doc Bunny on November 25, 2012 at 8:06pm

Unfortunately we cannot advocate for freedom on one hand, and support the current system with the other.The system has been slowly and intentionally perverted over a period of decades to make it impossible to undo the damage. I truly believe attempting to work within this system as the definition of insanity. Trying the same thing again and again, yet expecting different results.

As far as the election goes, the only difference I see between Romney and Obama is the speed of the decline. I don't think that either one was in the least bit interested in following the Constitution. The same thing goes for the Gubernatorial race. And would it really matter if they were? No. The simple reality is that the priest king is one man against an entrenched bureaucracy. He really is powerless. Sure, he can appoint heads of the bureaucratic organizations, but the damage is done by career shitbricks deep within these organizations that for the most part have immunity for their actions.

The leftists spent thirty years infiltrating the Government: local, state, and federal levels. They did their work well.They are driven by ideology and will never quit because they believe in their cause. I would say that as a whole they believe more than we do. These folks are quite literally willing to dedicate their entire lives to enacting the change the feel is needed. They will work whatever shit job that has to be worked to see their cause fulfilled. They have been more successful than us. 

I work in the medical field, let me put this in my terms. The current system is a malignant cancer that is inoperable, and the patient is now too sick to be saved. Putting large amounts of effort and money into a patient who has multiple organ failure will do nothing in the end except prolong the suffering. At best what we can do is to make the patient comfortable and prepare the family for what is coming.

Comment by Doc Bunny on November 25, 2012 at 7:45pm

You are right.

The CoS could be viewed as a rival government. In a way, it is. Some people do not view the current government as legitimate, and have withdrawn their consent to be governed by it. This is where the Committee of Safety fits in. I see it as the legitimate local Government, and in all honesty am not concerned with how the local police state views it. I was declared a domestic terrorist by the DHS years ago. They already want me dead. When the Director of "Homeland Security" calls people like me domestic terrorists,that's not opinion- that's national policy. I personally don't see the CoS as "rival" because the standing Government has lost any claim they ever had on my loyalty after sending me to war and then declaring me an enemy of the state. I answer to the Committee of Safety, not to whoever the current priest king happens to be. As Henry David Thoreau says "cast your whole vote".  I recommend that you check out Gary Hunts "outpost of freedom" and you will learn quite a bit about the CoS. Gary really is a subject matter expert on this.

The very fact that the State Guard exists in its current fashion is an obscene waste of money, regardless how little it is. If they spend one cent on that abortion known as the "state guard" it's one penny too much.

Comment by SGM Settles on November 25, 2012 at 7:28pm

Doc, the Commitee of Safety (Wikepedia entry) looks to me like it might be viewed as a rival/insurgent government at the city/county level.

I'm not confident either that the state will get its shit together. That's why, in the short term, I see a better chance of success in working with county authority - specifically the sheriff.

By the way: I don't think that the state spends any money on the State Guard - they must provide their own uniforms, and have no equipment.

I also agree that the National Guard has become too much a Federal tool - but then, that's the Federal statute & Congress' responsibility to provide for the Militia. The President may Federalize any that he needs on his own authority, but Congress has limited how many, and for how long, without their perission (these numbers include Army, Navy, and USAF reserve - not part of the Militia). Otherwise they belong to the State Governor.


Members (22)


© 2019   Created by Gladiator 42/5/71.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service