Yes, it’s a backward mounted sight.
John Fund at National Review Online recently published an article titled “The United States of SWAT?” While not an exhaustive missive on the topic, it raises a number of interesting issues.
Regular readers know I’ve often written on the topic of the misuse of SWAT teams, such as “The Case For SWAT Teams,” “Seventy-One Rounds In Tucson: The SWAT Shooting of Jose Guerena,” and “SWAT and the Second Amendment,” all published at Pajamas Media. More recently, I wrote on SWAT thinking and organization in “Connecticut, The Coming Storm, Part 4: A SWAt Primer” here at SMM. That particular article has a link to an updated map of botched SWAT actions around the nation, as well as much information pertinent to the topic.
One of the most disturbing developments in the ever-changing relationship between government and citizens is the militarization of federal agencies that have no apparent need for such overt displays of force. Fund writes:
Regardless of how people feel about Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s standoff with the federal Bureau of Land Management over his cattle’s grazing rights, a lot of Americans were surprised to see TV images of an armed-to-the-teeth paramilitary wing of the BLM deployed around Bundy’s ranch.
They shouldn’t have been. Dozens of federal agencies now have Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams to further an expanding definition of their missions. It’s not controversial that the Secret Service and the Bureau of Prisons have them. But what about the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? All of these have their own SWAT units and are part of a worrying trend towards the militarization of federal agencies — not to mention local police forces.
As readers know, Bundy, obviously not a glib, teleprompter-reading smoothie, found himself the object of public scorn when he engaged in a clumsy comment about the relationship between government and minorities. That Bundy is hardly media savvy, and may—I stress “may”– hold ideas some consider racist, the issue of the abuse of power by government is far more important and is not going away, thanks to the age of Obama with its exponential growth of government and disdain for individual liberty.
As Fund notes, why should agencies like the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Office of Personnel Management and the Consumer Product Safety Commission have armed personal at all, let alone SWAT teams? This would seem absurd, and profoundly dangerous to citizens and liberty on its face.
SWAT teams fielded by genuine law enforcement agencies are often misused when they are employed to serve warrants that may be routinely handled by a detective and a few patrol officers, or when sent on missions that do not require the use of overwhelming, and sometimes uncontrolled, deadly force.
Remember that when a SWAT team is employed, the inherent danger for the members of the team and for citizens is dramatically increased. A single consideration will illustrate the danger. Police officers are taught to always protect their handguns. Because they are exposed, it’s always possible they can be taken and used against an officer. Therefore officers are given specific training to increase their awareness of this danger and to fend off attempts to take their handguns.
SWAT officers commonly carry handguns in drop holsters strapped to their thighs. This is not so because it looks “cool”—though many cops think exactly that—but because the wearing of heavy body armor and tactical vests with all of their equipment makes wearing a belt holster impractical. Unfortunately, this makes handguns harder to protect and more prone to snatching. Add a long arm of any kind and the situation is worse. Not only do long arms essentially occupy both of an officer’s hands, using them makes it harder to keep track of their handgun.
As a result, SWAT teams should not be employed unless they are entering a tactical situation where they will be applying overwhelming force, speed and violence of action such that no one will have more than a minimal chance of stopping them or snatching any of their weapons. Use them for common patrol officer duties and for this single reason, the danger to them and the public is substantially increased. Fund continues:
The proliferation of paramilitary federal SWAT teams inevitably brings abuses that have nothing to do with either drugs or terrorism. Many of the raids they conduct are against harmless, often innocent, Americans who typically are accused of non-violent civil or administrative violations.
Take the case of Kenneth Wright of Stockton, Calif., who was ‘visited’ by a SWAT team from the U.S. Department of Education in June 2011. Agents battered down the door of his home at 6 a.m., dragged him outside in his boxer shorts, and handcuffed him as they put his three children (ages 3, 7, and 11) in a police car for two hours while they searched his home. The raid was allegedly intended to uncover information on Wright’s estranged wife, Michelle, who hadn’t been living with him and was suspected of college financial-aid fraud.
The year before the raid on Wright, a SWAT team from the Food and Drug Administration raided the farm of Dan Allgyer of Lancaster, Pa. His crime was shipping unpasteurized milk across state lines to a cooperative of young women with children in Washington, D.C., called Grass Fed on the Hill. Raw milk can be sold in Pennsylvania, but it is illegal to transport it across state lines. The raid forced Allgyer to close down his business.
If these examples sound extreme, perhaps cherry-picked, be assured, they are hardly unusual. During my police service, to even suggest a SWAT team be used for such mundane duty would have caused my fellow officers to question my judgment and fitness to serve as a police officer. In the first case—and this would have required the services of an unarmed Department of Education functionary, not an armed police officer–I would have simply knocked on Wright’s door when I was sure he was home, told him I was running down some paperwork issues relating to his ex-wife, and proceeded from there. There would have be absolutely no need—no justification for—an application of armed force. In the second, a few state police officers—or a local sheriff’s deputy accompanying a federal functionary could easily have handled such a lactose-tolerant desperado. Fund again:
Many veteran law-enforcement figures have severe qualms about the turn police work is taking. One retired veteran of a large metropolitan police force told me: ‘I was recently down at police headquarters for a meeting. Coincidently, there was a promotion ceremony going on and the SWAT guys looked just like members of the Army, except for the police shoulder patches. Not an image I would cultivate. It leads to a bad mindset.
This is an important point. It is certainly reasonable for SWAT officers to wear military style, daily utility uniforms. Not only are they designed to be worn with the body armor, tactical gear and other accessories SWAT officers commonly have to use, they allow greater freedom of movement and are more comfortable than daily police uniforms. However, this too causes potential problems. Tactical gear makes it difficult for citizens to identify legitimate police officers. There is little room on their chests for identifying insignia—which may not be recognizable by most citizens anyway—and such small, frontal insignia is commonly covered by their arms or weapons. Shoulder patches are difficult to see from many angles, and large “Police” logos on officer’s backs are invisible unless one is behind that officer, which is highly unlikely when SWAT officers are coming through one’s front door by surprise.
SWAT officers, of course, know who they are, their purpose, and their insignia and what it means. This does not, however, mean that citizens, particularly when confronted, unexpectedly and at odd hours in their own homes by heavily armed men, often wearing balaclavas that cover their faces and mute their voices, screaming at them, will immediately recognize them as police officers and know what they are saying and what those officers want them to do.
Police officers screaming “police,” “get down” and similar commands while charging into a citizen’s home through their shattered door all too often fail to realize that stunned and unprepared citizens need time to understand what is happening and to respond in any meaningful way. Yet SWAT teams try to use the element of surprise, in effect, causing the kind of stunned hesitation and confusion that poorly trained teams use to justify shooting unarmed citizens in their own homes when those citizens don’t respond precisely as demanded as quickly as officers think they should respond during their hyped-up charges.
In effect, SWAT teams manufacture, through their presence and very tactics and procedures, the circumstances that allow them, under color of authority, to kill citizens, whose only crime is often trying to respond to an unimaginable attack on their home. This is particularly horrific when the police murder innocent people or people guilty of no more than violation of minor, non-violent crimes or even bureaucratic regulations. Of course, any citizen with the presence of mind to take up a firearm to protect themselves, their family and their home against armed intruders they often do not recognize as police officers could find themselves on the receiving end of a panicky and uncontrolled barrage of gunfire.
Police executives will often arrogantly proclaim “anyone that points a gun at cops is going to get killed.” Unfortunately, the courts often let them get away with that kind of mindless, blanket action. There is no question that there are circumstances so dangerous to the public and the police that SWAT teams and what are essentially military-style tactics and rules of engagement are justifiable, but those circumstances are rare indeed and should be easily articulable before and after the action. Contrast this with SWAT teams violently attacking citizens in their homes acting only on the possibility that any citizen might be armed and might be moved to use firearms to defend themselves and those they love. Any citizen manufacturing a situation that will give the appearance of legal justification to kill another will surely be charged with premeditated murder. How is a SWAT team doing the same thing any different in intention or outcome? Kenneth Wright and Dan Allgyer are lucky to be alive.
SWAT teams should be employed only in very narrowly construed circumstances where military tactics, equipment and rules of engagement are highly likely to be necessary and fully lawful. They should be employed only after obtaining fully competent and carefully reviewed warrants. And the officers should be highly trained and competent to a degree that renders the accidental shooting of citizens doing nothing more than trying to protect themselves against an unknown threat unlikely rather than a certainty. Assaults on ranchers over grazing fee disputes, women whose student loan payments aren’t current (particularly when they don’t actually live at the place being attacked), and dairy farmers do not qualify.
Fund has several suggestions
There are things that can be done to curb the abuses without taking on the politically impossible job of disbanding SWAT units. The feds should stop shipping military vehicles to local police forces. Federal SWAT teams shouldn’t be used to enforce regulations, but should focus instead on potentially violent criminals. Cameras mounted on the dashboards of police cars have both brought police abuses to light and exonerated officers who were falsely accused of abuse. SWAT-team members could be similarly equipped with helmet cameras.
After all, if taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill and cede ground on their Fourth Amendment rights, they have the right to a transparent, accountable record of just what is being done in their name.
I suppose one can argue that cheaply selling surplus MRAPs to local law enforcement agencies can contribute to an overly-military mindset, but it’s more an appearance vs. substance issue. Police agencies aren’t rolling in cash. If they can get useful vehicles cheaply, they’ll jump at the chance. There are issues of far greater import, and Fund hits on one: federal SWAT teams should be used only to enforce the most serious violations of law, and only under the circumstance’s I’ve outlined. The arrests of the majority of felons may be safely carried out by only a few federal agents, and rightfully so. When the Department of Education doesn’t have a SWAT team, it will be far less likely to improperly employ that kind of force because actual law enforcement agencies will be forced to make the final deployment decision. I am assuming, of course, that federal agents are sufficiently competent to realize that a SWAT team is not necessary—and entirely the wrong means—of collecting student loans in arrears, rounding up cattle or dealing with the sale of milk the Feds don’t like.
Fund’s camera idea—which is surely not unique to him—does have merit, with one caveat. The technology surely exists to do this, and there is no good argument against it, with the exceptions of some counter terror or organized crime situations where it may be necessary to keep identities secret. For all other actions, what better evidence that a team did everything by the book and that deadly force was actually necessary and not recklessly applied?
The caveat is tactical. Any real time video system will carry with it the essentially irresistible temptation by bureaucrats and chairborn commando/leaders to micromanage actual assaults. Imagine a police chief yelling confusing orders in officer’s ears during an assault. Worse yet, imagine a lawyer doing the same. Such interference would actually put everyone involved in greater danger. The solution isn’t the elimination of video, but video without real time micromanagement.
Deciding when to properly use a SWAT team shouldn’t be hard for any professional possessed of average common sense. Unfortunately, when even small towns have SWAT teams, the temptation to use them inappropriately will always be powerful. It is not politically impossible to refuse to establish, or to decommission unnecessary SWAT teams, but it does require integrity and intelligence on the part of elected officials to whom police agencies answer.
On the other hand, maybe it is impossible.
UPDATE: 05-07-14, 1850 CST: Thanks to Bearing Arms editor Bob Owens for the link, and welcome to SMM, Bearing Arms readers!
Stately McDaniel Manor 
It’s really only a matter of time until a SWAT team executes a wrong-address/illegal raid on a citizen who IS prepared and trained and we end up with a lot of very dead SWAT team members – I’ll be interested to see the media frenzy about how the home-owner was ‘anti-government’ and possessed an ‘arsenal’ in his ‘compound’ and had ‘hundreds of rounds of ammunition’ and ‘bomb making materials’.
Naturally, all the police video and audio will be ‘lost’ or ‘damaged’ or ‘misplaced’. As has happened again and again and again. Does it bother anyone that the operating assumption for most citizens these days is that the police are looking for an excuse? And they are to be feared and avoided at all costs? Much as someone in Africa would want to avoid the Janjaweed militia?
This feeling is only reinforced by the current prosecutorial mind-set of shot-gunning every charge in the book at someone they want to ‘put down’ in the certain knowledge that SOMETHING will stick. After all, it’s on them to keep the civilians in their patrol sector under control! That’s why they HAVE the troops there, putting boots on the ground.
These are not the concerns of free men in a free society. These are the fears of subjects in a tyranny. And they should NOT be what we are having here in THIS country. Something is very, very wrong here.
Sorry. Feeling very down today. :(
Orion
Don’t ever be sorry for telling the truth. Sorry that you’re feeling down!
One thing most people forget, or have NEVER been taught is who the US Constitution assigns the duties of:
– Enforcing the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
– Enforcing and keeping the “Laws of the Union” (which is constitutional laws ONLY),
– Protecting the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
– “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.
US Constitution, Article I, Section. 8, Clause 11: “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”.
The congress has the duty to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal when they are needed to enforce the US Constitution, the laws, or defend the people and the nation. This is using private citizens in their own privately owned crafts to defend the USA and her people, this is using the Militia.
Clause 15: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions.
This clause is very straightforward also. The militia of each state is taxed with the defense of the USA and her people, not just with the defense of their state; and they are to be armed with weapons that can repel any invasions bearing modern weapons of war. Congress is required to provide those military grade weapons for the militias. The “suppress Insurrections” includes those who are our representatives who are working against the USA and her people.
Clause 16: “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”.
Thomas Jefferson, 1st inaugural, explained that: “a well-disciplined militia” is “our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them” and also a guarantee of “the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; [and] economy in the public expense.”
When the founders created the US Constitution they realized that we would never be able to count on state and federal representatives or agencies to protect our lives, property, and freedom. They decided to continue with what the people here had already been using, and the one proven throughout history to have the best needs of the people themselves always put first, the Militia of the several states. Who are the Militia? All able-bodied citizens or those legally allowed to be here between the ages of 18 – 60. Each state’s Militia is made up of “We the People” protecting our own interests, homes, states, nation, and enforcing our governments.
Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”
George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
St. George Tucker, a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court Judge, wrote of the Second Amendment: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.” (The Supreme Court has cited Tucker in over forty cases, in the major cases of virtually every Supreme Court era.)
Thomas Cooley: “The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. . . . If the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for that purpose”.
Samuel Adams: “Under every government the last resort of the people, is an appeal to the sword; whether to defend themselves against the open attacks of a foreign enemy, or to check the insidious encroachments of domestic foes. Whenever a people … entrust the defence of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens.
And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions”.
Samuel Adams: “It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control … The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them..”
Patrick Henry: “If you have given up your militia, and Congress shall refuse to arm them, you have lost every thing. Your existence will be precarious, because you depend on others, whose interests are not affected by your infelicity.”
Justice Story, Associate Justice, Supreme Court wrote: “The next amendment is: “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.
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them”.
Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
… aka, the National Guard.
Volunteer force of citizens, whose responsibilities can lay with both the states and federal action, armed trained and organized by the government whose duties may include disaster relief, riot control, and general peace keeping.
With the various clauses that you are mentioning, its a wonder the SCotUS saw fit to interpret arms without the militia participation as being an individual right. Its says why the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, its assumed that such arms will be held by a citizen in a state of ready as part of a well regulated militia.
If you are a collection of dudes out shooting, avoiding the the “well regulated” and “government trained” part… you aren’t militia. Depending on the compulsion to act, you are a posse, or at worse, a vigilante group.
RuleofOrder,
You need to research the meaning of, “Well regulated,” at the time the Second Amendment was written.
Here’s a place to start:
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
Hint: It doesn’t have the statist meaning you seem to think it does.
Once again RoO screws it up. Well regulated simply means well trained. It has nothing to do with government regulations, which were virtually unheard of at the time. If you are a collection of dudes out shooting, you are in fact living up to the “well regulated” clause. Marksmanship was considered a core skill (and often one lacking) for milita by the founders.
“RuleOfOrder” (obviously a statist troll …)
With all I respect to Bruce Willis, “Bzzzzzzztttt, WRONG answer!!!!!”
Read them and weep …
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. — Noah Webster
The militia is a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the States except when called out; [ when called into actual service] a permanent or long standing force would be entirely different in make-up and call. — Alexander Hamilton
Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it. — Richard Henry Lee
A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms. — Richard Henry Lee
No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen. — Richard Henry
The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States… Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America. — Gazette of the United States Source; October 14, 1789
An armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics — that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe… — James Madison
We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. — Thomas Jefferson
The militia is a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the States except when called out. — Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers #28
What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. — Representative Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts
Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. — John F. Kennedy
The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country… — James Madison,
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials. — George Mason
Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defense, the militia, is put in the hands of Congress? Of what service would militia be to you when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the state? For, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not provide them. — Patrick Henry
An instance within the memory of some of this house will show us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliment was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. — George Mason
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. — Patrick Henry
For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security. — Thomas Jefferson
The militia is the natural defense of a free country against foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. The right of citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph
The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it ever will remain, in the hands of the people. — Tench Coxe
The President, and government, will only control the militia when a part of them is in the actual service of the federal government, else, they are independent and not under the command of the president or the government. The states would control the militia, only when called out into the service of the state, and then the governor would be commander in chief where enumerated in the respective state constitution. — Alexander Hamilton
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age… — Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code
In order of appearance:
“Once again RoO screws it up. Well regulated simply means well trained.” —“Congress is required to provide those military grade weapons for the militias.” as Cal mentioned above, and followed up with “To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia, and for…”. In short, you aren’t arguing me, you are arguing against Cal’s point. ;) Though I am curious as to how much different you thing “regulated” meant at the time as written as opposed to now. Tell me, according to the founding fathers, what is the definition of ‘regulated’, and why do you think because it was so… well, unimportant so as to not be expounded upon.
“Well regulated” as defined (by your link, btw) as falling in a predictable metric based on an understood baseline. A clock is well regulated. Why? A system of standards. Well regulated courts… which operate along a specified baseline. A benchmark. If you would like to incorporate Cal’s previous remarks, this benchmark is check by Congress to discipline and arm said militia, as well as organizing it.
“The militia is a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the States except when called out;” — much like the National Guard…
“Read them and weep …” — I know this is going to shock you, but quoting people in relation to refute points that were not made (and to be fair, 10% of those I think did so), doesn’t do your cause any good. I mean seriously, WTF does this have to do with ANYTHING: “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…”. Of course it will consist of all able bodied males, the infirm males would do no good, and at the time, women engaging in such an action was scarce. What good would having a rule in you organization to state that “All able bodied males, and one or two invalids”. Its a criteria for entrance, dude, not a mandate.
Please don’t play the ‘at the time it was written’ game. At the time it was written, a fire arm was understood to be a one shot reload weapon, possibly a pistol, and a variety of naval weapons. This is the part where you need to redirect to modern day SCotUS rulings, btw.
““RuleOfOrder” (obviously a statist troll …)” every time you say this, a homosexual couple gets married. ;) But seriously, if you think that everyone whom differs in your opinion of application is a troll, I opine that its probably a very scary world for you.
Rule of Order
I didn’t say everyone was trolls, JUST THAT YOU APPEAR TO BE ONE. (But not a very good one)
No, the world isn’t scary to me. I’m well armed, know how to use them, and have the will to do so when the situation calls for it.
Squirm as you will, RoO, the fact remains that you were taken to the woodshed for some serious instruction, Be gracious and accept your lesson. .
” JUST THAT YOU APPEAR TO BE ONE. (But not a very good one)” —- think about that for a second.
” I’m well armed, know how to use them, and have the will to do so when the situation calls for it.” — so I was right then. Different = scary. I didn’t mention anything about violence, but that is the first place you went. The need to defend yourself from a non threat.
“Squirm as you will, RoO, the fact remains that you were taken to the woodshed for some serious instruction, Be gracious and accept your lesson.” —- we must not have been reading the same thread, either that, or like Carl, you think a page of unrelated text is sound backing against an argument never made, and therefore worthy of celebration.
[… aka, the National Guard.]
“National Guard” = “militia” again. Um.
Guard members may volunteer to join, just like the regular forces today. But once they take the oath they are soldiers, fully accountable under the federal Uniform Code of Military Justice, NOT “volunteers.”
So the Second Amendment, “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.” was added to the Constitution to prohibit the federal government from infringing on the right of the federal government to issue federally-owned weapons to people the federal government has commissioned or enlisted into a federal military force, which is controlled primarily by the federal government.
Yeah, I don’t think that makes any sense.
And if you think the states have control over “their” National Guards, you might consider the battle of the schoolhouse door, and what happened when President Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard and used it to defeat Alabama’s Governor George Wallace.
The National guard is a governmental agency therefore it is NOT a Militia. The Militia is not, cannot be ANYONE who works in the government/military. It is NOT private citizens using their own vehicles or weapons. How hard is it to understand that the treasonous scum who are occupying our federal – and some state – governments relabeled the National Guard so that the next generation would not realize what a militia is – nor is it taught in public schooling. As Patrick Henry said: “If you have given up your militia, and Congress shall refuse to arm them, you have lost every thing. Your existence will be precarious, because you depend on others, whose interests are not affected by your infelicity.”
YOU, me, everyone here in the USA that is NOT a governmental employee (military is government) IS the militia of the several states.
Just because those in government call it a “Militia” does not make it so, anymore then “assassination powers” are anything other then First Degree Murder.
Or “Emergency Powers” – the exact opposite of the US Constitution – is an authority the supreme courts were given to give to another branch to use or to use themselves. It was NOT. There is no such thing as “emergency powers”, it is just words used to control the ignorant masses who are not taught our legitimate government as is required – another crime.
The militia existed here in America before we were a country and it IS every able-bodied person within the USA who is a citizen or lawfully allowed to be here and is NOT a federal or state government employee.
Jefferson: “The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with arms usual in the regular service…”
“It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control … The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them..” Samuel Adams
Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, floor debate over the 2nd Amendment, I Annals of Congress: “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to PREVENT THE ESTABLISMENT OF A STANDING ARMY, the bane of liberty….”
Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”
George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
James Madison: “… large and permanent military establishments … are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark.”
Thomas Cooley: “The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. . . . If the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for that purpose”.
Justice Story, Associate Justice, Supreme Court wrote: “The next amendment is: “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.
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them”.
Joel Barlow, Revolutionary War veteran, wrote “Advice to the Privileged Orders, in the Several States of Europe”, and American whose political writings were debated on the floor of Parliament said of the US Constitution: “… not only permitting every man to arm, but obliging him to arm.”
The National guard is a governmental agency therefore it is NOT a Militia.
The Militia is not, cannot be ANYONE who works in the government/military. It IS private citizens using their own vehicles or weapons. How hard is it to understand that the treasonous scum who are occupying our federal – and some state – governments relabeled the National Guard so that the next generation would not realize what a militia is – nor is it taught in public schooling.
As Patrick Henry said: “If you have given up your militia, and Congress shall refuse to arm them, you have lost every thing. Your existence will be precarious, because you depend on others, whose interests are not affected by your infelicity.”
YOU, me, everyone here in the USA that is NOT a governmental employee (military is government) IS the militia of the several states. It is YOUR constitutionally assigned duty to:
– Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
– Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which is constitutional laws ONLY),
– Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
– “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.
To do that you must be armed and trained in the use of those arms.
Just because those in government call it a “Militia” does not make it so; anymore then “assassination powers” are anything other then First Degree Murder, a criminal action.
Or “Emergency Powers” – the exact opposite of the US Constitution – is an authority the supreme courts were NOT given to assign to another branch to use or to use it themselves. It was NOT a power of any of the three branches or of the three branches combined.
There is no such thing as “emergency powers”, it is just words used to control the ignorant masses who are not taught our legitimate government as is required – another crime. There is not such thing as “Martial Law” as there is NOTHING that the Constitution authorizes that in anyway can mess with our Natural Rights. That is a LIE, a very BIG lie, a lie the size and scope of Hitler and his actions.
If Marital law is called here in the USA it is actually the people who are occupying the federal government declaring war on the American People, on the USA, and using our troops to fight that war on the USA and the American people instead of defending it as required.
The militia existed here in America before we were a country and it IS every able-bodied person within the USA who is a citizen or lawfully allowed to be here and is NOT a federal or state government employee.
Jefferson: “The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with arms usual in the regular service…”
“It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control … The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them..” Samuel Adams
Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, floor debate over the 2nd Amendment, I Annals of Congress: “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to PREVENT THE ESTABLISMENT OF A STANDING ARMY, the bane of liberty….”
Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”
George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is NOT in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” (caps are mine)
James Madison: “… large and permanent military establishments … are FORBIDDEN by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark.” (caps are mine)
Thomas Cooley: “The right is general… The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. . . . If the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for that purpose”.
Justice Story, Associate Justice, Supreme Court wrote: “The next amendment is: “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.
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them”.
Joel Barlow, Revolutionary War veteran, wrote “Advice to the Privileged Orders, in the Several States of Europe”, and American whose political writings were debated on the floor of Parliament said of the US Constitution: “… not only permitting every man to arm, but obliging him to arm.”
First… here. Definition.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia — just some generic ideas and understanding of what a militia is.
Then here.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force — as to exactly how and what does what for whom.
Then here…
“(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.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. ”
which Cal above was so nice as to quote, but not in its entirety. I wonder why.
“Just because those in government call it a “Militia” does not make it so;” — and to wit, just because a bunch of dudes with rifles engage in some target practice and CALL themselves militia, it does not make it so as well.
“Jefferson: “The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with arms usual in the regular service…” —- again, the funny part is the context you ignore. Jefferson armed -state- militias, not any Tom Dick and Harry that stitched a flag together. IE, it was something REGULATED. Ya know, like the constitution mentions.
Further more, a NG unit -may- be federalized, which also falls under the role of militia, should a situation warrant, that is part of their duty. “President Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard and used it to defeat Alabama’s Governor George Wallace.” — yeah, that whole desegregation thing, right? In which a Governor was breaking a court order in denying admission to students based on race, and the federalizing of the NG was used to -take away- the club the governor was using to enforce his personal views, even though the courts ordered differently. I am not sure you should use that as the centerpiece of an argument about the NG being a federal entity, considering its power was being abused by the governor, and the federalizing de-escalated the situation.
“It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace” —- this argument is going to have a REAL hard time fitting in here. I mean, seriously, Mike, care to weigh in on this snippet? Small militaries make you look weak, right? No able display of force, which emboldens our enemies, right? That was the take away I got from some of our other conversations.
If you want my take on it for perspective, is that some where along the line, the Founding Father’s knew that arms would become more advanced, and that any workaday member of society should have access to them provided their position in a well regulated militia is maintained. This -does not- deny the right to keep arms typical for a citizenry, that being modern day handguns, long rifles, shotguns, etc. as those are property, much like a home, car, livestock, and the like. Is what tickles me are people that want the tricked out M4 to stand against the “government”, but when asked if they are part of a militia, the answer is ‘no’, or their impression of being in a militia is a parody of war games and skirmishes out behind some one’s house, and a tacti-cool standard and patches.
The Militia existed before the federal government REdefined it.
It existed before we were a nation. It existed before we created the states, before we created the US Constitution which defined our government and assigned duties to the people who were put into office to carry them out.
You are determined to say that “We the people” are not the Militia like the federal government says, yet our own forefathers, and the framers of the US Constitution say WE are.
Why are you so espousing the federal government’s view on the 2nd Amendment and the Militia?
They redefined it because they can never take power away from us, destroy us, destroy our legitimate government as long as WE were watching out for ourselves and neighbors/towns/cities/counties/states/nation. As long as we are armed and trained they cannot defeat us, they cannot commit democide easily – like shooting fish in a barrel as happened in Germany, Russia, China, Africa, etc.
Since you are willing to work against your country, better pray we win, because WE will give you a trial. They already had it proven to them that you cannot be trusted, but are useful as a tool so they will destroy you when your use is over. Always study history, and NEVER take anyone’s word for anything, particularly when they work for the government – they lie as a matter of POLICY.
They, them, those, ‘the government’. Nebulous concepts, just as nebulous as the ‘good guys’ you wanna give credit to, an undefined smattering of people whom wear the self appointed badge of militia and the dangerous mantle of self righteousness. The concept of a Militia is to work both with and as a check to the elected powers, but instead, you would rather see a huddled mass of folks with guns fighting an omnipresent boogey man, whose designation changes to fit the dissatisfaction of your inferior voting block. When no enemy exists, you invent one whole cloth.
“Since you are willing to work against your country,” tinfoil hat is on too tight, pal.
“… the dangerous mantle of self righteousness. The concept of a Militia is to work both with and as a check to the elected powers, but instead, you would rather see a huddled mass of folks with guns fighting an omnipresent boogey man, whose designation changes to fit the dissatisfaction of your inferior voting block. When no enemy exists, you invent one whole cloth.”
So where did I invent an enemy? From all the lies told to get us into “wars” I think you have me confused with domestic enemies.
I am not the one who gave myself “assassination powers” (First Degree Murder) of anyone, including Americans on US soil.
I am not the one working to destroy our legitimate government through propaganda, lies, disinformation, cartel owned media, SWAT teams – militarized police, foreign troops brought into the US and stationed here, giving control over the US Military to the UN and NATO – Panetta, Dempsey, Obama; which is treason, subliminals, selling & giving US military armament to terrorists blamed for 9/11 and still fighting our family members and friends enlisted in the military, I have 40 pages of crimes committed by just THIS Obama administration along with the “top” military treasonous brass. Many more then that going back to Bush 1.
I support the US Constitution. The ONLY legitimate authority anyone in any branch or any state government has is when they do their duties as assigned by the US Constitution and/or the state’s Constitution they are in and when they keep their oath. The rest of the authority is taken, usurpation, treason, and other crimes against the USA and the American people.
Just because you are working for or supporting them does not absolve YOU of your actions against the USA and her legitimate government – which is NOT a “democracy”.
Obviously we are not a “huddled mass of folks with guns fighting an omnipresent boogey man”. We are very aware of the Military illegally patrolling our streets as in Boston & cities in California, etc. Of SWAT teams breaking and entering injuring and even murdering people and their pets with NO lawful authority then someone with rank giving them an illegal order. Of LE’s on the streets doing the same, again with no lawful authority here in the USA because their authority comes from the US Constitution & state Constitutions and keeping that .personal guarantee, that lawfully required Oath.
“So where did I invent an enemy? ”
Self answered later:
“Just because you are working for or supporting them does not absolve YOU of your actions against the USA and her legitimate government”
and answered previously:
“Since you are willing to work against your country, better pray we win, because WE will give you a trial.”
This coming from some one whom sees a militia as being different than you, (my perspective) that being having organization, discipline, and regular training, and more over, militia not withstanding, doesn’t infringe on the right to own certain firearms, as they are every day property, and then you saying said opinion is treasonous.
Boo.
Loosen the tinfoil hat.
Thus far, all that talk of the SWAT, military patrolling, yadda yadda, its all YOUR fears trying to inject itself into this discussion, when it has NO bearing what so ever. If you want to change the scope to military posing as LE, or SWAT and the 4th amendment, peachy keen, but we then drop the 2nd/Militia discussion we are having because you would like to erect a straw man to the relevant debate.
Your comment is spot on.
Quibbling (with a wink): It will not be reported that the homeowner had “hundreds of rounds of ammunition” it WLL BE REPORTED that the homeowner had “hundreds of bullets.” LOL!
Use of “bullets” when “ammunition / cartridges” is meant is the most common idiotic misuse of words these days. The really amusing thing is that “journalists” and even some gun writers think that using “bullets” is somehow more “image promoting” than, say, using the word “ammo.” “Ammo” is merely a contraction, “bullets” as often misused is just plain ignorance derived through laziness.
An example of what I was talking about:
http://theweek.com/article/index/261058/speedreads-sober-woman-arrested-for-drunk-driving-after-deputy-falsifies-report
There are many thousands of stories like this.
Orion
Sadly, this has forced me into the position of, “Any cop who points a gun at anyone in my home is going to get killed.”
Sadly, this has forced me into the position of, “Any cop who points a gun at anyone in my home is going to get killed.”
My sentiments exactly. In fact, I’ll go one step farther and say, “Anybody who breaks into my house will be assumed to be armed and lethal, and I will shoot him/her.” This would be especially true if I can ascertain that the intruder has a cop uniform on: unlike normal criminals, cops are known for their willingness at all times to shoot first and ask questions later, secure in the almost certain knowledge that the “justice” system won’t touch them. When official justice does not dispense true justice, it falls on the people to administer it.
I did some brief research into this Wright case. Some sites have shown that, besides Wright’s claims, there was no evidence that a SWAT team was used to serve what was actually a search warrant for evidence of student loan fraud. Just several officers according to one neighbor. Also Wright and his ex were subsequently indicted for said fraud to the tune of $280,000. Doesn’t excuse excessive force, but there is a big difference between “a lot of cops” and a SWAT team.
Dear dean smith:
Thanks for the comment and welcome to SMM. If you have any links to share, I’d appreciate it. I’ll certainly research them and update and correct as necessary. Thanks again!
I’m not disputing the fact the police sometimes use excessive force. I know of reported local cases just within the last year or so. I also tend to believe that the federal govt. is often involved, including when it just provides municipal police with military grade equipment and weaponry.
I think there are two things that need to happen to reduce / eliminate such surprise attacks on innocent people in their residences. 1. is that ways must be found to achieve greater citizen outreach to local police. 2. is that funding must be restricted for the purchase of military grade equipment by municipalities. NYC is a good example of a city which maintains its own police army and this must be addressed effectively.
I also tend to think that we should demand a study be done on such incidents. We need to know more about them before we can take measures to ensure the security for ourselves and our fellow citizens. Perhaps we should start here: try to generate a grass roots letter writing campaign with our congressional representatives. As it is, certain public officials are known to call for “excessive security” for such things at book signings (Hillary Clinton is a perfect example of a public official who “demands” SWAT coverage for her book signings when she was just the wife of a philandering politician from Arkansas.)
Funding games just encourages the departments to play funding games. The real solution is simple — remove the officers’ qualified immunity if there is a defect in the warrant. You hit the wrong house, you fake up your probable cause, you screw anything up in the warrant process (or even worse, don’t have a warrant at all) when you go into someone’s home, and you are personally liable for B&E, assault, attempted murder, murder, etc, plus civil damages. Until cops have some skin in the game as well, they are going to continue overreaching.
I fully agree with you on the issue of removing qualified immunity. But I don’t see this matter as “either / or” and believe that pressuring Congress (and individual members of it) to stop the funding of SWAT teams is ONE of several promising solutions. Not the only and not the best, necessarily.
I’m not a cop but had numerous contacts in a town where I lived. There’ve also been a couple of law enforcement officers in my family. I can report that, on average, these people are not thinking on the level of many of us here. They (as one officer recently told me) are thinking mostly about getting home in one piece after they’ve had to confront multiple armed opponents alone on the street that day.
Over forty years ago: a friend phoned me to ask me to rush to his aid. He had fired a warning shot at some people who chased him all the way to his back door and found himself in his house, holding his rifle while police surrounded his house. I rushed over (running five red lights): and spent the next FIVE HOURS explaining to the surrounding force that I could and would go into the house, come back out with the “offending gun” and take custody of it “over the weekend” (until things cooled down). I’m sure that during my talk with police, I brought up the matters of constitutional rights, the need for a warrant, etc. (LOL) But they didn’t seem to take that seriously because they “were on a mission.” What did convince them to let me go get that rifle was that I used the names of officers I knew in the next town and gave them a couple of phone numbers they could call to verify that I was “okay” (and not a nut job ranting about constitutional rights).
That was 40 years ago: when there were NO SWAT teams. If I tried that with a SWAT team today – I’d end up arrested while my friend would go down under massive gunfire and take a few attackers with him. (he was capable and well enough armed) SWAT teams take citizens as part of the problem but they can be (as in my story) an essential part of the solution. You can’t “get acquainted” with SWAT teams and that’s exactly the problem we have with them.
“I think there are two things that need to happen to reduce / eliminate such surprise attacks on innocent people in their residences. 1. is that ways must be found to achieve greater citizen outreach to local police. 2. is that funding must be restricted for the purchase of military grade equipment by municipalities. ”
I think those are great ideas, except…
How about ALL law enforcement keep the lawfully required and its-a-felony-not-to-keep Oath or we remove them from that position – federal or state, as they are REQUIRED by the contract they agree to and sign.
The US Constitution and all that is “In Pursuance thereof it” IS the supreme LAW of THIS land. As Dr Edwin Vieira states in his book “Constitutional “Homeland Security” Volume 1: the Nation in Arms”: “That means “that NONE of those tasks are assigned to the Army, to a Navy, to a (constitutionally unknown) National Guard, or least of all to any unnamed professional police, security, or intelligence agencies of the General Government or of any state or locality. Rather, the Constitution’s explicit emphasis on the Militia as the preeminent forces by politicians of a garrison, “national-security”, or police state…
So those bound by Oath who “knowingly, with willful blindness, or in reckless disregard of the consequences of his/her action” votes for an unconstitutional act, bill, etc; when a “President or state governor refuses to veto it and instead executes it; or when a Judge, either of the supreme and inferior courts of the general government, or of any state knowingly declares such a statute valid and enforceable – each and every one of them violates his oath of office….
A remedy MUST exist for every individual harmed by each and every violation. That remedy MUST impose some personal liability on the violator – it being his own Oath or Affirmation he himself forswore. And that personal liability cannot be evaded by his or his cronies’ assertion of some ersatz official immunity”. (End quote by Dr Edwin Vieira)
That oath and the contract requiring them to support and defend the US Constitution, and whichever stare Constitution they are under BEFORE the orders of anyone ranked above them and the duties of the position they occupy means that once they break it they no longer have any lawful authority here in the USA.
And SWAT teams are Militaristic in dress, training, and action making them not even legal on the streets within our country. The cops only “skin” in the game is as long as they keep the Oath and follow the US Constitution and whatever state Constitution they are under they have legitimate authority. When they break away from that and “just follow orders” or “just do their job” they no longer have any legitimate authority and actually are impersonating an officer of the law while committing criminal and civil crimes.
James Madison: “… large and permanent military establishments … are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark.”
James Madison: An efficient militia is authorized and contemplated by the Constitution and required by the spirit and safety of free government.
“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to PREVENT THE ESTABLISMENT OF A STANDING ARMY, the bane of liberty….” Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, floor debate over the 2nd Amendment, I Annals of Congress
”The United States should get rid of its militias”. Joseph Stalin, 1933.
And they did.
Remember that the US Constitution allows for ONLY one official immunity, ONE.
“Using an “”implied power to create “official immunities” for themselves would allow them to negate the express requirement that “they shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution”… “for any public official to create or assert a purported “official immunity’ for himself or any other official” is itself a violation of his Oath or Affirmation”. Dr. Edwin Vieira.
I think your approach is sound and worthy. But why “except” in response to possible solutions I propose? Why not BOTH – because I think most of us here understand this is a multi-level problem. It IS a matter of contract law and the state and federal constitutions. It IS also a matter of voter control of government funding (a big area, much neglected). It IS also a matter of better relations between citizens and the police departments WE MAINTAIN for public and personal security.
So it is with that in mind that I ask you to support any and all suggestions and efforts to ‘re-balance” police vs citizen powers. I willingly support your ideas and I think a key to success is unity of purpose on our part. We have the same important goal in mind – I think we should avoid dispute or competition to see who’s got the best idea. I think ALL ideas which defuse this hot button issue are worth including.
I think we should form a “militia of the mind” on this and use the contributions of as many capable members as we can.
While I’m at it, I might as well add that the 2nd Amendment isn’t the end-all / be-all of this. There are many state constitutions which DO take over where the federal government and constitution leave off (which is specifically the right of the states to do so).
Michigan’s constitution includes the provision which says: “Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for the protection of himself and the state.” This is a real improvement over the federal constitution which, at least implicitly, speaks only to militias for the purpose of “protecting the state” (at least that’s how it’s interpreted sometimes but Michigan’s version avoids that kind of MISinterpretation). Michigan’s entered the Union in 1837 – there have been re-writes of its constitution but THAT ONE PROVISION has survived them all. Michigan has no restrictions on “open carry” at all. In addition, reflective of the mind set: Michigan’s state flag includes the motto “Teubor” which interpreted from Latin means: I will defend.
Returning to the main topic: When I speak of unity of purpose, Im not talking mealy-mouthed compromise. I’m talking about comprehensively covering the matter of police powers, police armaments vis a vis citizen rights and safety.
@ Jack Noel, what you say is true.
There are many state constitutions which DO take over where the federal government and constitution leave off (which is specifically the right of the states to do so).
The US Constitution and all that is in Pursuance thereof it is the supreme law. All states are supreme in what they create except where it is in conflict of the “US Constitution and all that is in Pursuance thereof it”.
That means that they unalienable rights protected by the US Constitution and the ones referred to by Amendment 9 – the unlisted unalienable rights, ex. travel, use your own land the way you want to, water, food that you grow or hunt or catch, etc is to be followed by the states as well.
The federal government has a very restricted jurisdiction under its control under our legitimate government. Some encroachments it has been doing that is NOT under its jurisdiction are:
US borders: Article. I, section 8, Clause 3 – To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations… , Clause 4 – To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…
They have NO lawful (legal) jurisdiction over who can come into the USA, only over what requirements must be meant in order to become a US citizen.
Section. 9: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit,…
The states have that jurisdiction. It is usurpation on the part of the feds.
Clause 7 – To establish Post Offices and post Roads; Those are the only roads they have any jurisdiction over.
Crimes, laws that are under their (federal) jurisdiction:
Clause 4 – …and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Clause 6 – To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
Clause 10 – To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
Clause 11 – To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Clause 14 – To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Clause 16 – To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And
Clause 17 – To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Many people think that a US president is the Commander in Chief. That is partially true, a president is the Commander in Chief when our military forces are called out – when the congress declares war.
Section. 2: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, WHEN CALLED INTO THE ACTUAL SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES;…
There has been no war declared by the congress.
[I think there are two things that need to happen to reduce / eliminate such surprise attacks on innocent people in their residences.]
Not quite. SWAT teams don’t bust down doors thinking the perp on the other side is “innocent.” Plus, in the age of “Three Felonies a Day” none of us are “innocent.” We need to reduce surprise attacks on GUILTY people. Guilt or innocence, after all, is decided much later in the legal process.
About the only real reason for a SWAT entry should be hostage rescue or danger to the community.
Community outreach and allocation of funding for more useful purposes are both nice, but if we want to stop SWAT raids then we need to drastically raise the bar for warrants. Minimum criteria should be that the target has a history of violence, the situation is such that simply surrounding him and waiting him out is dangerous, or he has hostages. IOW LEOs have to prove that the raid is less dangerous than the alternative.
The only way to protect the innocent is for the law to also protect the guilty.
“The only way to protect the innocent is for the law to also protect the guilty.”
Exactly!
“How ‘secure’ do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and … forcibly enter?” Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the lone dissenter in Kentucky v. King
The Rule of Law is not for the protection of the guilty, but for protection from government violations of individual rights.
Black’s Law Dictionary, first edition, defines de facto: In fact, in deed, actually. This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs which exists actually and must be accepted for all practical purposes, but which is illegal or illegitimate.
Black’s Law Dictionary, first edition, defines usurper: One who assumes the right of government by force, contrary to and in violation of the constitution of the country.
Pingback: They Have the Kit But do They Have the Skills?
This thing about answering a banging on your door late at night …
… and having a gun in your hand.
Read this one and weep.
It was some deputies rather than a SWAT team, but essentially it’s the same story.
Also, they were at the wrong door, and killed the wrong guy.
Afterwards they trumped up charges for the right guy in order to make their killing of the wrong guy seem more excusable.
http://www.thetallahasseenews.com/index.php/site/article/police_shoot_and_kill_innocent_man_in_lake_county_sheriff_claims_it_was_jus
Reblogged this on disturbeddeputy and commented:
The author hits it on the head. A lack of professionalism, ethics, and most of all common sense is creating a well-justified fear of our militarized police forces.
Dear disturbeddeputy:
Welcome to SMM, and I appreciate the link.
Reblogged this on U.S. Constitutional Free Press.
Dear AKA John Galt:
Welcome to SMM and thanks for the link!
A friend had an idea that I liked. Only allow SWAT teams at the county level under control of the elected sheriff. There is more direct customer feedback.
@Phil, I would support that. The main risk, I think, is failing to elect a sheriff who is honest and has a clear understanding of the use and purpose of a citizen militia. That’s not a criticism of the idea, it only reflects my concern over the disinterest and unconcern of voters – these days.
Re: getting rid of SWAT teams (the original topic) – I think it may be a good idea to encourage police departments to have more police auxiliary (officers). Just saying: it seems to me we all agree that more citizen involvement with law enforcement “departments” works in the direct we all want to go.
Except for the ongoing training requirement, a volunteer based swat team would have merit. Similar to forming a posse of old. And we have lots of relatively young veterans. As far as getting a bad sheriff due to lack of attention of the electorate, perhaps that will cause the electorate to pay attention.
As I write this, another possibility comes to mind, use the local guard. The guard is supposed to be composed of citizen soldiers from the local community. They have most of the equipment and weapons and a portion of each local unit could be re-tasked to support local LE within strict guide lines. Thanks to our adventures in the middle east, more troops are trained in urban warfare.
SWAT teams try to be like Delta or the SEAL’s, but the reality varies. The next city over has an excellent team, I know their commander. He is a good man and he and his team take their job seriously. However, once he gets to know you, he will tell you his deputy chief should have been run off the force when the man was a patrol officer. Other teams in other nearby cites are not as good. They have the toys but do not commit to the training required.
The funding of SWAT teams in most cities comes from grants, federal and state. This started with the formation of Home Land Security and the Patriot Act. If the locals had to pay for the teams, perhaps the locals would say no.
Outstanding article. Would love for most of these gov’t SWAT teams to be disbanded. Thank you and keep it up!
At the very least every deployment of SWAT implies tremendous liability for the government jurisdiction, not to mention personally for each officer. At the very least, there is a tangible threat of accidental discharge and the unintended damages that are open-ended in civil litigation. If a private company were to have a SWAT team, would it be able to even get a comfortable level of liability insurance for it? The only way that government can afford the liability is that judges run interference for it by being reluctant to waive sovereign immunity, and any settlement eventually comes from the infinitely deep pockets of the taxpayer.
It is not that we should never deploy militarized police, but that it has become too easy to do so. It has become too easy because the deploying agency does not have to feel any budgetary impact for the implied liability. Maybe one way to force agencies to put a high bar on the decision to deploy SWAT is that every armed officer who is deployed must be costed out from the budget for liability reserve, which is then recovered slowly as post-raid time passes without any damage claims. When it costs serious money to call out SWAT, they will tend to be called out only when absolutely necessary.
I don’t agree that SWAT teams always take charge to execute wrong raids and kill and get killed without reason! This example, however, seems to have proven them wrong, especially if he wasn’t actually involved with whatever he was charged with. It is true there is no justification for killing innocent people!
Here is an article for your perusal regarding the inappropriate use of SWAT teams.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/09/19/federal-appeals-court-stop-using-swat-style-raids-for-regulatory-inspections/
Pingback: The First Top Ten Most Popular SMM Articles! | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: SMM All Time Top Ten Articles | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: The SMM Top 10: 2011-2019 | Stately McDaniel Manor