State Militia?

[roberts]

That pretty much leaves you able to watch and call 911 for suspicious activity. You certainly could arrest for a felony committed within view, but I doubt many criminals would commit a crime with a group watching them. The crooks would figure out who you were pretty quickly.

If they "move on" that is a win for that neighborhood.

[seamusTX]

Yes, and that is what Neighborhood Watch achieves. Unfortunately, the crooks move to another neighborhood where the residents are less vigilant.

I've read quite a few stories about small groups of neighbors who worked with the police to drive drug dealers away from their immediate area. If someone is on a bullhorn saying, "We don't want drug dealers in this neighborhood," the customers don't come around.

Most are successful, though a few have been attacked and killed in retaliation. There was an unsuccessful arson attempt here against a cafe owner who cleaned up his corner.

- Jim

[roberts]

Yes, and that is what Neighborhood Watch achieves. Unfortunately, the crooks move to another neighborhood where the residents are less vigilant.

That shows the effectiveness of volunteers compared to the effectiveness of paid law enforcement in that jurisdiction.

[seamusTX]

Neighborhood Watch and other such efforts have advantages over law enforcement in most situations:

• Volunteers have less area to patrol and know it better than police who may have to patrol many square miles.
• Volunteers may have more time to spend on patrol (retired people) and aren't distracted by radio calls.
• In cases like the drug corners that I mentioned, residents have a stronger interest in cleaning up the area -- sometimes their own front yards -- and near-zero response time.

If neighborhood watch observes a crime being committed, such as a vehicle break-in or graffiti, they still have to call the police, and the usual response-time problem means that the police don't have much chance of apprehending the culprit.

- Jim

[stevie_d_64]

Jim,

Steve, it is in fact illegal to be in a gang, as defined in PC Ch. 71. For the legal definition of gang to kick in, some members of the group must routinely engage in illegal activity. That is a slippery definition.

Yes, that is correct...

So the slippery definition might become one of contention, if I said something like, "Hey, us guys and gals in the "CHL gang" can do whatever we want, so there!" (Hypothetically speaking of course)

"Does anyone here routinely engage in illegal activities?" (rhetorical)

If I go and look at the statistics, there is evidence that some in our "gang" do...I see how the net could be cast wide and far if that really were the case...

You know, come to think of it...I wonder if that might be what some, (or all), gun control advocates think we are???

Just shooting from the hip...You got me to thinkin'...I'm crazy like that...

[seamusTX]

Gang and RICO laws are very much biased in favor of prosecutors, IMHO.

Let's say that in a state of emergency such as the aftermath of a hurricane, you and your neighbors organize as a militia without official government recognition. That is still completely legal. It's what the original Minutemen did in Massachusetts in the 1770s, and people did it in Louisiana after Katrina.

You adopt a conspicuous article of clothing, such as an orange armband, to identify one another.

Now let's say some overenthusiastic members of your organization stop people in the neighborhood whom they do not recognize, hold them at gunpoint, and search them. That is a felony (aggravated assault), and the entire organization could be considered a criminal gang.

The county DA can then prosecute you at no personal cost to himself, and you have to pay through the nose to defend yourself.

...I wonder if that might be what some, (or all), gun control advocates think we are?

Some do. Not all.

If you read editorials about various aspects of CHL law even in Texas, you can see that the authors think that we are either itching to shoot or not to be trusted to control ourselves in road-rage incidents and the like.

- Jim

[Captain Matt]

Run silent. Run deep.

[stevie_d_64]

Gang and RICO laws are very much biased in favor of prosecutors, IMHO.

Let's say that in a state of emergency such as the aftermath of a hurricane, you and your neighbors organize as a militia without official government recognition. That is still completely legal. It's what the original Minutemen did in Massachusetts in the 1770s, and people did it in Louisiana after Katrina.

You adopt a conspicuous article of clothing, such as an orange armband, to identify one another.

Now let's say some overenthusiastic members of your organization stop people in the neighborhood whom they do not recognize, hold them at gunpoint, and search them. That is a felony (aggravated assault), and the entire organization could be considered a criminal gang.

The county DA can then prosecute you at no personal cost to himself, and you have to pay through the nose to defend yourself.

...I wonder if that might be what some, (or all), gun control advocates think we are?

Some do. Not all.

If you read editorials about various aspects of CHL law even in Texas, you can see that the authors think that we are either itching to shoot or not to be trusted to control ourselves in road-rage incidents and the like.

- Jim

Yep, very good...

Lets say you have another Ike roll thru again this year...(hopefully not)

And you and some of your nieghbors formed the "Seaside Militia"...Would not the "Seaside" PD step in and say no no fellow Seasiders...You cannot do this...Then what would you do???

I changed the names to protect the innocent...

I believe this discussion will help others who may, or may not have, the same ideas as we do...

BTW, you do know I do contract work...

[seamusTX]

Lets say you have another Ike roll thru again this year...(hopefully not)

And you and some of your nieghbors formed the "Seaside Militia"...Would not the "Seaside" PD step in and say no no fellow Seasiders...You cannot do this...Then what would you do???

In the first place, we had no need for a militia or neighborhood patrols. No serious crime took place until the blockade was lifted. All the do-bads had left before Ike. The junkies didn't want to have their supply cut off, and the dealers followed their customers.

There were also nearly as many police and other responders on the island immediately after Ike as residents who stayed.

The police would have no objection to a group of citizens strolling through their own neighborhood during the day (there was a sunset curfew for a while). I never heard of any law-abiding citizen being questioned, whether alone or in groups.

Hypothetically speaking, if said citizens were displaying weapons, they probably would be asked to be more discreet. If they refused, they probably would be disarmed and arrested for disorderly conduct. The police would be satisfied to let the DA's office work out the details when it was back in business.

This is just my guess based on my experience. I am not expressing an opinion one way or the other.

- Jim

[stevie_d_64]

Lets say you have another Ike roll thru again this year...(hopefully not)

And you and some of your nieghbors formed the "Seaside Militia"...Would not the "Seaside" PD step in and say no no fellow Seasiders...You cannot do this...Then what would you do???

In the first place, we had no need for a militia or neighborhood patrols. No serious crime took place until the blockade was lifted. All the do-bads had left before Ike. The junkies didn't want to have their supply cut off, and the dealers followed their customers.

There were also nearly as many police and other responders on the island immediately after Ike as residents who stayed.

The police would have no objection to a group of citizens strolling through their own neighborhood during the day (there was a sunset curfew for a while). I never heard of any law-abiding citizen being questioned, whether alone or in groups.

Hypothetically speaking, if said citizens were displaying weapons, they probably would be asked to be more discreet. If they refused, they probably would be disarmed and arrested for disorderly conduct. The police would be satisfied to let the DA's office work out the details when it was back in business.

This is just my guess based on my experience. I am not expressing an opinion one way or the other.

- Jim

Yep, this might help a few people, who may not have ever had to deal with a situation like this...Gives a great perspective from real life events...

I think it is better to be discrete and have a general plan with some of your nieghbors before the seasonal risk appears all of a sudden, know what I mean...And its not all about militias and firearms and all that...

[seamusTX]

And its not all about militias and firearms and all that...

No. I don't think a shot was fired in anger or self-defense the whole time.

The #1 need is potable water. FEMA got water and food in pretty quickly.

After that, getting enough electricity to recharge cell phones was a big priority. People who owned generators suddenly had a lot of friends.

Civil unrest was way down on the list.

The situation might be different in a big city that had no electricity. That was more or less how it was in New Orleans after Katrina. In that case, people have other problems. How do you tell the good guys from the bad guys, when the cops might be the bad guys? But that situation occurred under a different set of laws and political climate. I can't see a Texas governor ordering confiscation of firearms or any kind of house-to-house search.

- Jim

[Plato]

If you really want to serve, there is another option. Become an LEO but serve as a reserve. You go through the academy and get licensed but don't take the full time paying job -once a local dept puts you on as a reserve your standing is equal in the state of TX's eyes as any other Peace Officer.

I did this for a few years with the local Sheriff's Dept. You don't punch a clock or work a set shift, but like the rest of the deputies you are a cop 24/7. There are times when a reserve can really help the man power strain on smaller departments.

[centex aggie]

this day and age, the federal govt wouldn't condone a militia. It sees that as a threat to their already corrupt org.

[seamusTX]

I don't see how you can say that the federal government would not condone a militia when the concept is embedded in federal law and every state has a militia now.

- Jim

[roberts]

Doesn't current federal law define the militia as able bodied adults?