How about we just clamp down on anyone doing bad things (including day-care bomber McVeigh), rather than going after people for their political beliefs. You sound like you're advocating for domestic terrorism yourself if you want people with guns to go after those of your chosen political target merely exercising 1A and 2A rights.
If they are participating in domestic terrorism, which is defined as (18 USC § 2331(5))
> activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
* https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331
I'm not aware of (m)any active (far-)left militias in recent years, though in the past there were some, e.g.:
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 military age males are in a militia.
>Every state has laws
Ignoring the fact that not all states have laws that specifically ban militias in general (just certain use of them), why on earth would DoJ (federal gov) be enforcing state law? What FEDERAL law bans organizations of men, already part of militia by US Code, from fraternizing together?
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites...
Some choice quotes:
===
Massachusetts Constitution: The Massachusetts Constitution forbids private military units from operating outside state authority, providing that “the military power shall always be held in exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.” Mass. Const. pt. I, art. XVII.
Massachusetts Statutes – Prohibition on private military units: Massachusetts law makes it illegal for groups of people to organize as private militias without permission from the state. ... Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 33 §§ 1, 130–31.
===
Phrases like "exact subordination" and "permission of the state" are not just window dressing. They're legally binding. You might consider yourself a member of such a militia, but to operate as such - notably to perform any military or law enforcement function - you must be under state or federal command.
As the above document also mentions, every state has similar restrictions. They might differ in details, but the message is the same: without state or federal command, your "sovereign militia" can do no more than cosplay (and sometimes not even that) without getting into legal trouble.
>You might consider yourself a member of such a militia
You can consider yourself in or out the militia or not. That doesn't make it fact, from a legal perspective. For government's purposes though I would use government's law, which tells us able-bodied military age males, generally, are in a militia.
> notably to perform any military or law enforcement function - you must be under state or federal command.
Um, the thread we're both replying to was about 'every state has laws making it illegal to be a member of a private armed militia.' You're arguing about something entirely different here, that is about state laws (not under purview of DoJ) that limit uses of militia.
Pedantic comment of the day, and on HN that's quite a contest. There's no functional difference between those two things.
> You're arguing about something entirely different here
No, I'm arguing the same point you were originally, until you were conclusively proven wrong and moved the goalposts.
Yes there is. If the criteria for membership in a club is that you have to be an able bodied male, that doesn't mean every able bodied male is a member of the club. It means an able bodied male could potentially choose to join the club. The US Code says they're in the club whether they want to or not.
>No, I'm arguing the same point you were originally, until you were conclusively proven wrong and moved the goalposts.
My point was never that a militia could perform same actions as military or law enforcement, YOU were the one who moved the goalposts. You didn't prove jack shit wrong.
> ICAP has categorized the relevant state laws into four groups: (1) constitutional provisions requiring the subordination of the military to civilian authorities; (2) statutes restricting unauthorized private militia activity; (3) anti-paramilitary-activity criminal laws; and (4) prohibitions on the false assumption of the uniform or duties of a peace officer or member of the military. The report describes these categories in more detail below and notes which states have statutes or constitutional provisions falling into each category. Following that summary is a chart listing each state’s relevant provisions, and finally each constitutional or statutory provision in full, organized by state. The chart also includes annotations of relevant case law.
* https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites...
Then it goes on to cite the California misdemeanor for doing so, in state law.
Why would DoJ (feds) be investigating misdemeanor state law in California?
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites...
Given historical evidence, there's a chance it will actually be successful, as it was done in the past.
After the Oklahoma City bombing the FBI went after the far-right militia movement, and clamped down on it.
* https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/since-oklahoma-cit...
* https://www.vox.com/2016/1/5/10712084/oregon-militia-history...
* https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-militias-timeline-idU...