As the Senate Judiciary Committee began hearings Monday on the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, much of the attention focused on whether the committee should even be considering her at this late date, with so many Americans already casting ballots in elections that could shift control of the White House and Congress. There was widespread interest, too, in how Barrett would handle issues already before the court or potentially soon to be there, including challenges to the Affordable Care Act and the results of the November elections.

One issue flying under the radar is gun control. Its been more than a decade since the Supreme Court has taken up a significant Second Amendment case largely, court observers agree, because the four conservative associate justices worried that they wouldnt be able to persuade Chief Justice John Roberts to vote with them to expand the rights of gun ownership.

If Barrett wins Senate approval to replace the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the conservatives might just gain that fifth vote. And that could be exceedingly dangerous for a country already awash in guns, potentially undermining efforts of California, New York and other states to overlay some measure of sanity on access to and use of firearms.

The Supreme Court previously embraced the notion that the Second Amendment referred to the rights of states to maintain militias, which consisted of individuals who brought their guns with them in the event the state called the militia into service. That changed with the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision, written by a conservative icon, Justice Antonin Scalia (invoking a misreading of the historical role of militias). In that case, the court held for the first time that the Second Amendment conferred a constitutional right to keep a firearm in the home for purposes of self-defense.

But it wasnt an absolute right, the court held. Government has a compelling interest in regulating who has access to firearms, Scalia wrote, pointedly adding that nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

A couple of years later, the court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago that the Heller decision applied to state laws as well as federal, but since then it has declined to accept cases that might clarify other issues, such as whether the court believes the right to have a firearm exists outside the home. (It took one case last year, then abandoned it as moot after the New York law at issue was changed.)

The Heller decision was wrongly decided, in our view, but the likelihood that this court will undo it is astronomically small. More likely, with Barrett aboard, is that the court will change the way it assesses gun regulations, opening the door for more successful challenges by gun rights advocates, many of whom take a hard-line approach that the Second Amendment guarantees just about anyone in the country the right to own and carry a gun any time they want.

Barrett didnt mention the Second Amendment in her opening statement Monday before the Judiciary Committee. And while sitting on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett considered only one Second Amendment case, writing an arcane but important dissent in Kanter v. Barr, a 2-1 case last year.

Since the Heller decision, lower federal courts have measured the constitutionality of gun restrictions by looking at whether the restriction in dispute achieved an important government objective. If the evidence showed that it did, the courts have held, restrictions were lawful even if they impinged on someones ability to buy or carry a weapon.

Barretts dissent embraces a broader view of Second Amendment rights that suggests she subscribes to the text, history and tradition test to determine whether there is a historical precedent for a challenged gun law. If theres no precedent, then the restriction is unconstitutional a theory that could imperil such modern gun controls as mandatory background checks, permits to carry a firearm in public and bans on large-capacity magazines.

But when do history and tradition start? Gun laws have always been part of American jurisprudence. So while Barretts ascension to the court will likely shift the balance toward loosening gun restrictions, its unclear how far she and the court might go.

Ultimately, though, loosening restrictions or barring innovative new controls on access to firearms would move the country in the wrong direction. We know that the presence of firearms in the home increases the likelihood they will be used against someone in the household. We have seen the incendiary effect they have when protesters arrive at demonstrations with military-style rifles slung over their shoulders. Accidental deaths and suicides run higher in jurisdictions with the fewest restrictions on gun ownership. Thats all part of the history we would hope even a conservative court would contemplate as it holds the fate of so many people in its hands.

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Previous

Read the rest here:

Another View: What a Justice Barrett might mean for the Second Amendment - Press Herald

Jon Gabriel, opinion contributor Published 7:00 a.m. MT Oct. 17, 2020

Opinion: Democratic Senate candidate Mark Kelly founded a center that gave Arizona gun laws an F and endorsed candidates that few gun supporters would back.

Democratic challenger Mark Kelly prepares to debate Republican Sen. Martha McSally at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University on Oct. 6, 2020.(Photo: Rob Schumacher/The Republic)

Sure, Mark Kelly loves the Second Amendment. Just ask him.

"I am a supporter of the Second Amendment, I am a gun owner, the Democrat said at last weeks U.S. Senate campaign debate. Our rights and traditions are so important.

I probably own more firearms than your average Arizonan," he told another interviewer.

But Kellys actions show disdain for gun rights. The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which Kelly co-founded,endorsed California as the best model for gun laws while giving Arizona an F.

Californians fleeing their state might vote for the same failed policies in their new home of Arizona. If so, Mark Kelly is their guy. Arizonans who view the basket case to our West as a cautionary tale need to think twice.

Politicians love making promises almost as much as they love breaking them once they arrive in D.C. Its voters duty to trust but verify these oaths, although the trust part is optional.

The record clearly shows that Kelly has spent years pushing gun control legislation and promoting the Second Amendments worst enemies.

For Kelly, the issue of gun control is personal. His wife, Rep. Gabby Giffords, was shot by a mentally ill man in 2011, leaving her with a traumatic brain injury. The gunman killed six others, all with a weapon he legally bought following a background check.

His activism is understandable, but he should be honest about it. Kelly is free to push all the gun control measures he wants; Arizona voters are free to disagree.

Following the Tucson shooting, Kelly and Giffords founded a gun control group called Americans for Responsible Solutions. In 2017, they renamed it Giffords, including a legal arm and political action committee.

The groups mission is fighting to end the gun lobbys stranglehold on our political system. Their long list of political endorsements includes some of the most passionate opponents of our Second Amendment rights.

The Giffords group endorsed Gov. Gavin Newsomin 2018, celebrating California for having the strictest anti-gun laws in the nation.

Im so honored to receive the support of Gabby and Mark two incredible advocates and selfless public servants, Newsom said. I have long admired their work across the country fighting to end gun violence, and Ive been proud to partner with them to strengthen our gun safety laws here in California.

Newsom is eager to push his gun safety laws on Arizona with another ally in the U.S. Senate.

Kelly and Giffords also endorsed Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzkerthat yearfor his attacks on the Second Amendment. Needless to say, Arizona has plenty of former Land of Lincoln residents as well. They fled for a reason.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) earned the coveted Giffords endorsement this year. While Mark Kelly might not mention the words Democrat or progressive in his ads, his organizationsure likes far-left candidates.

Thegroupeven endorsed Rep. Pramila Jayapal (DWash.), who praised protesters inSeattles violent CHAZ as planting the seeds of justice.The next day she called for decriminalizing homelessness and to re-imagine and rebuild law enforcement across the country in order to finally put an end to police brutality, militarization, and anti-Blackness.

Most Arizonans dont want autonomous zones planting the seeds of justice in Phoenix, Tucsonor Flagstaff, but perhaps Kelly disagrees. His groupsendorsement says otherwise.

Just like Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, Mark Kelly fills his ads with waving flags, pickup trucks, and paeans to tradition and the Constitution. But if the past is prelude, a Senator Kelly will push Sacramento and Seattle laws on the freedom-loving voters of Arizona.

I suspect Arizonans dont want to see their state turned into California. Mark Kelly hopes they do.

Jon Gabriel, a Mesaresident, is editor-in-chief of Ricochet.com and a contributor to The Republic and azcentral.com.Follow him on Twitter at@exjon.

Read or Share this story: https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2020/10/17/mark-kelly-actions-second-amendment-speak-louder-words/3658487001/

Read the original post:

Mark Kelly says he supports the Second Amendment. But actions speak louder than words - The Arizona Republic

Image: Adobe Stock

The U.S. militia movement has long been steeped in a peculiar and unquestionably mistaken interpretation of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and civil liberties.

This is true of an armed militia group that calls itself the Wolverine Watchmen, who were involved in the recently revealed plot to overthrow Michigans government and kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

As I wrote in Fracturing the Founding: How the Alt-Right Corrupts the Constitution, published in 2019, the crux of the militia movements devotion to what I have called the alt-right constitution is a toxic mix of constitutional falsehoods and half-truths.

Private militias

The term militia has many meanings.

The Constitution addresses militias in Article 1, authorizing Congress to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining, the Militia.

But the Constitution makes no provision for private militias, like the far-right Wolverine Watchmen, Proud Boys, Michigan Militia and the Oath Keepers, to name just a few.

Private militias are simply groups of like-minded men members are almost always white males who subscribe to a sometimes confusing set of beliefs about an avaricious federal government that is hostile to white men and white heritage, and the sanctity of the right to bear arms and private property. They believe that government is under the control of Jews, the United Nations, international banking interests, Leftists, Antifa, Black Lives Matter and so on. There is no evidence of this.

On Oct. 8, the FBI arrested six men, five of them from Michigan, and charged them with conspiring to kidnap Whitmer. Shortly thereafter, state authorities charged an additional seven men with, according to the Associated Press, allegedly seeking to storm the Michigan Capitol and seek a civil war. Included were the founders and several members of the Wolverine Watchmen.

As revealed in the FBI affidavit accompanying the federal charges, the six men charged claimed to be defenders of the Bill of Rights. Indeed, some of the men in April had participated in rallies in Lansing, the state capital, where armed citizens tried to force their way onto the floor of the State House to protest Governor Whitmers pandemic shut-down orders as a violation of the Constitution by a tyrannical government intent upon sacrificing civil liberties in the name of the COVID-19 fight.

According to the FBIs affidavit, the conspirators wanted to create a society that followed the U.S. Bill of Rights and where they could be self-sufficient.

Militia members imagine themselves to be the last true American patriots, the modern defenders of the United States Constitution in general and the Second Amendment in particular.

Hence, the Bill of Rights and especially the Second Amendment, which establishes the right to bear arms figure prominently in the alt-constitution. It is no accident that the initial discussions about overthrowing Michigans so-called tyrannical governor started at a Second Amendment rally in June.

According to most militias, the Second Amendment authorizes their activity and likewise makes them free of legal regulation by the state. In truth, the Second Amendment does nothing to authorize private armed militias. Private armed militias are explicitly illegal in every state.

No restrictions on rights

Additional foundational principles of militia constitutionalism include absolutism. Absolutism, in the militia world, is the idea that fundamental constitutional rights like freedom of speech, the right to bear arms and the right to own property cannot be restricted or regulated by the state without a citizens consent.

The far rights reading of the First and Second Amendments which govern free speech and the right to bear arms, respectively starts from a simple premise: Both amendments are literal and absolute. They believe that the First Amendment allows them to say anything, anytime, anywhere, to anyone, without consequence or reproach by government or even by other citizens who disagree or take offense at their speech.

Similarly, the alt-right gun advocates hold that the Second Amendment protects their God-given right to own a weapon any weapon and that governmental efforts to deny, restrict or even to register their weapons must be unconstitutional. They think the Second Amendment trumps every other provision in the Constitution.

Another key belief among militia members is the principle of constitutional self-help. Thats the belief that citizens, acting on their inherent authority as sovereign free men, are ultimately and finally responsible for enforcing the Constitution as they understand it.

Demonstrating this way of thinking, the men arrested in Michigan discussed taking Gov. Whitmer to a secure location in Wisconsin to stand trial for treason prior to the Nov. 3 election. According to Barry County, Michigan Sheriff Dar Leaf a member of the militia-friendly Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officer Association the men arrested in Michigan were perhaps not trying to kidnap the governor but were instead simply making a citizens arrest.

Leaf, who appeared at a Grand Rapids protest in May of Gov. Whitmers stay-at-home order along with two of the alleged kidnappers, mistakenly believes that local sheriffs are the highest constitutional authority in the United States, invested with the right to determine which laws support and which laws violate the Constitution. The events in Michigan show how dangerous these mistaken understandings of the Constitution can be.

There will be more

The Wolverine Watchmen are not a Second Amendment militia or constitutional patriots in any sense of the word. If they are guilty of the charges brought against them, then they are terrorists.

The FBI and Michigan law enforcement shut down the Watchmen before an egregious crime and a terrible human tragedy unfolded. But as I concluded just last year in my book, there is little reason to think the militia movement will subside soon.

Unfortunately, I did not account for the possibility that President Trump would encourage militias to stand back and stand by, which seems likely to encourage and embolden groups that already clearly represent a threat. Expect more Michigans.

This story incorporates material from a story published on April 15, 2019 in The Conversation.

John E. Finn is a Professor Emeritus of Government at Wesleyan University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

See the rest here:

Plot to kidnap Michigan's governor grew from the militia movement's toxic mix of constitutional falsehoods and half-truths - ncpolicywatch.com

Salesman Ryan Martinez holds a handgun at the Ready Gunner gun store In Provo, Utah, June 21, 2016.(George Frey/Reuters)

In my post arguing that the Founders wanted you to own AR-15, I contend that there was no mention of hunting during drafting debates over the Bill of Rights.

Professor Joseph Olson reminds me that the debates over ratification of the Bill of Rights in Pennsylvania did indeed mention hunting. (I write about this in detail in my cultural history of the gun.)

Here was the excellent suggestion offered by the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention on the topic of arms:

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.

James Madison ended up simplifying and distilling many suggestions, throwing in a comma that would be seized upon many years later. But the debate on ratification was over militias and standing armies, never over individual ownership of guns.

Hunting was likely only mentioned in the Pennsylvania convention as a precaution against English-style restrictions on ownership. The most famous example, the Game Act of 1671, made possession of a firearm by anyone unqualified to hunt (read, common men) illegal and provided a pretext for the Crown to confiscate weapons.

Many saw all of this as superfluous. Some argue that fear of the national government was overblown because there were so many guns in private hands it was unimaginable any tyrannical army could ever be more powerful than the general public. Noah Webster, writing as A Citizen of America, reasoned that 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.

Not one person in the provisional government or at the Second Continental Congress or any delegate at the Constitutional Convention at any state ratifying convention is on the record arguing against the idea of individual firearm ownership. There is, however, a multitude of examples of leaders championing the importance of that right.

Eight of the 13 original states enshrined the right to gun ownership in their constitutions most with language more straightforward than that found in the Bill of Rights. The best was probably New Hampshires compact sentence: Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.

See the rest here:

On the Second Amendment and Hunting - National Review

Tapping on his cellphone with a sense of purpose, Kevin Mathewson, a former wedding photographer and onetime city alderman in Kenosha, Wis., did not slow down to fix his typos as he dashed off an online appeal to his neighbors. It was time, he wrote on Facebook in late August, to take up arms to defend out City tonight from the evil thugs.

One day earlier, hundreds of residents had poured onto the streets of Kenosha to protest the police shooting of 29-year-old Jacob Blake. Disturbed by the sight of buildings in flames when he drove downtown, Mr. Mathewson decided it was time for people to arm themselves to protect their houses and businesses.

To his surprise, some 4,000 people responded on Facebook. Within minutes, the Kenosha Guard had sprung to life.

His call to arms along with similar calls from others inside and outside the state propelled civilians bearing military-style rifles onto the streets, where late that night a gunman scuffling with protesters shot three of them, two fatally. The Kenosha Guard then evaporated just as quickly as it arose.

Long a divisive figure in Kenosha, Mr. Mathewson, 36, who sprinkles his sentences with Jeez! and describes himself as chunky, does not fit the typical profile of a rifle-toting watchdog, although he said he supported President Trump on Second Amendment grounds. The rise and fall of his Kenosha Guard reflects the current spirit of vigilantism surfacing across the country.

Organizations that openly display weapons have existed for decades, with certain hot-button issues like immigration or Second Amendment rights inspiring people who think the Constitution is under threat. Ever since the 2017 white nationalist march in Charlottesville, Va., armed groups have become fixtures at demonstrations around the country, although membership numbers remain opaque.

With the approaching election ratcheting up tensions in recent months, armed groups that assembled via a few clicks on the keyboard have become both more visible and more widespread. Some especially violent groups were rooted in longstanding anti-government extremism, like the 14 men charged with various crimes in Michigan this month.

Starting in April, demonstrations against coronavirus lockdowns prompted makeshift vigilante groups to move offline and into the real world. This became more pronounced amid the nationwide protests after the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis with some armed groups claiming to protect the protesters while others sought to check them.

When President Trump was asked at last months presidential debate about activity by right-wing extremists, including the violence in Kenosha, he declined to outright condemn such groups, and told one far-right group to stand back and stand by.

Experts who study violent groups say that many are unstructured and do not undertake basic steps like training together. They are usually just a fraternity with a shared goal, like the groups in Oregon that patrolled back roads amid wildfires, hunting mostly imagined looters or arsonists.

In Kenosha, police officers were caught on video expressing appreciation to the gunmen and handing them bottles of water, prompting criticism that law enforcement officers encouraged the armed groups.

But soon after, the sheriff tried to distance his department. Part of the problem with this group is they create confrontation, David Beth, the Kenosha County sheriff, told reporters at a news conference. Asked later about any investigation, the Sheriffs Department said it had not referred any cases linked to the Kenosha Guard for prosecution, and the Police Department did not respond.

Mr. Mathewson first tried to muster the Kenosha Guard in June after the city had small protests because of Mr. Floyds death in Minnesota. A little more than 60 people responded.

Then, on Aug. 23, video emerged that showed a Kenosha police officer firing seven times toward Mr. Blakes back.

When protests disintegrated into property destruction, Mr. Mathewson said, he thought law enforcement was overwhelmed.

After two nights of demonstrations, he posted an event on Facebook called Armed Civilians to Protect our Lives and Property. He named himself commander of the Kenosha Guard and added an open letter to the police telling them not to interfere.

Several hundred people volunteered to participate and around 4,000 expressed approval. His call to arms spread to other platforms, like Reddit. Infowars, the website that traffics in conspiracy theories, amplified it, as did local right-wing radio stations.

You cannot rely on the government or the police to protect you, Mr. Mathewson said.

Before forming the Kenosha Guard, he had seen reports focused on armed groups deploying in Minneapolis and Portland, Ore. It was so far from me that it did not seem real, he said. When it happens in your own backyard, your own city, it is like, Jeez, what can I do?

I am pro-Second Amendment, but I am not a right-wing nut job, he added.

Posts on Facebook amplified the sense of siege in Kenosha by spreading false rumors that murderous gangs from Milwaukee, Minneapolis and Chicago were coming to ransack the city of 100,000 people.

Jennifer Rusch, 47, a hair stylist, clicked on Mr. Mathewsons webpage to find armed men to protect her business. Facebook had a lot to do with making everybody hysterical, she said. Now we know 99 percent of it was lies.

People messaged Mr. Mathewson from around Wisconsin and other states, asking where to deploy. He could not handle the avalanche of responses flooding his cellphone, he said.

People thought we had some kind of command staff or a structure but it was really just a general call to arms meant mostly for his neighbors, Mr. Mathewson said.

Jerry Grimson, 56, a former campaign manager for Mr. Mathewson during his run for alderman, responded by organizing his own neighbors to come out. There was no way we were going to let people burn down our homes, he said.

That night, Mr. Mathewson stuck to the entrance of his subdivision, WhiteCaps, at least seven miles from the city center. Pictures show him wearing a baggy red Chuck Norris T-shirt and knee-length camouflage shorts, with a rifle slung over his chest. He passed the early evening sitting outside on a lawn chair with some armed neighbors, then went to bed early. I kind of felt a little bad that I got this in motion but then I was home by 9, he said.

While he slept, downtown Kenosha boiled over.

Witnesses blamed the violent disarray partly on the fact that many gunmen downtown were strangers to one another, with some on rooftops acting as spotters to call in reinforcements and no one in command.

To Raymond K. Roberts, a real estate investor and six-year Army veteran who monitored the vigilantes, the parade of jacked-up pickup trucks filled with armed men resembled Afghanistan.

Mr. Roberts noticed that law enforcement officers largely ignored the men.

The gunmen never seemed to realize that all the combat weaponry made Black residents like himself particularly uneasy, Mr. Roberts said, and that the community would have preferred to protect itself. They just had this assumption that we dont exist, he said.

As tensions surged with protesters and armed enforcers tussling, authorities say that Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old from nearby Illinois, opened fire with a military-style semiautomatic rifle, killing two protesters and seriously wounding a third. He faces homicide charges and has become a poster boy for the far right.

Mr. Mathewson remains unsure which armed men downtown responded to his call and he denied having any contact with Mr. Rittenhouse.

Longtime Kenosha residents said they were conflicted over Mr. Mathewson, with his behavior angering some and others praising his many years as an independent watchdog.

Fans noted that he had chased down surveillance videos that exposed bad police behavior and, before leaving his alderman post in 2017, pushed for police body cameras that have still not been bought. But critics said he had turned himself into a nuisance by transforming political differences into personal vendettas.

Angie Aker, a community activist, initiated a criminal complaint against him as an accessory to the protest deaths. I think he invited people in who were looking for a reason to shoot, she said. There is also a federal lawsuit that names Mr. Mathewson, along with Mr. Rittenhouse and Facebook, among others, for depriving the four plaintiffs of their civil rights; one is the partner of a victim and the three others allege that armed men assaulted them.

Mr. Mathewson said what he did was covered by free speech.

After the shootings, Facebook banned Mr. Mathewson for life, removing his personal and professional pages. He said he lost 13 years of photo archives, including videos of his daughter and son taking their first steps and a memorial page for his mother.

Mr. Mathewson said that for now he had no plans to revive the Kenosha Guard. His wife has had enough of the spotlight, he said, with his phone ringing constantly.

I am getting love and hate from all over the country, he said.

Mark Guarino contributed reporting.

Read more from the original source:

When Armed Vigilantes Are Summoned With a Few Keystrokes - The New York Times

People said they left feeling even more confident in their decision as they head to the polls for the next few weeks.

MACON, Ga. Just 18 days from Election Day, people who attended President Donald Trump's rally on Friday said he solidified their votes.

"I'm not a Republican, I'm not a Democrat, I'm just an American and I've never really been into politics, but a couple days ago, it was my 18th birthday so President Trump will be the first person I vote for. I just had to come over here and say that," says Kinsley Ann Hadaway, from Alabama

"I think that a lot more people showed up than what they thought. I think the parking was really difficult, but other than that, it was a really good turnout and there's a lot of support for Donald Trump," said Tanner Bone of Warner Robins.

When we asked his favorite part of the rally, Bone adds, "Probably his Second Amendment, when he was speaking about how the Second Amendment is at risk right now, I like that he supports that."

Cameron Bligen from Peachtree City said, "Tonight's rally has been great. I think that people need to see that this country is united and not as divided as the fake news wants you to see."

Shawn Evanuk from Centerville said, "Second Amendment rights, the fact that he's all for what America stands for, that's basically it in a nutshell."

13-year-old Daniel McElheney from Jones County said although he can't vote, "He's my favorite president and he's done so much for America and I think he's great."

There was a long wait time for buses to get back to the parking lots after the rally, and some people chose to walk the 1.25 miles to their cars instead.

More:

Attendees say President Trump's MAGA rally in Macon solidified their votes - 13WMAZ.com

American History

The concept of a militia is no stranger to the American canon. Traces of civilian-military forces go back as far as the 1600s during the Colonial Period, over a century before the 13 colonies declared independence from British rule on the 4th of July 1776. The Declaration of Independence was a pivotal act in the historical drama known as the American Revolution. With the infancy of a new nation came the drafting of a document that has stood the test of time the Constitution of the United States.

The U.S. was far from the first country in history to establish and apply a constitution as the basis for its political system. A constitution at its core is a set of agreed-upon tenets, to provide a governmental skeletal frame on which some sort of society or organization is constructed. Nonetheless, there is an element of the U.S. Constitution that stands out among the rest a single concept that upholds its structural integrity.

For the uninitiated, the United States can be considered more of an experiment than a country. The experiment, also known as the Great American Experiment, is one of individual freedom. The Founding Fathers, most of whom were of some sort of theistic/deistic inclination, determined that the rights and liberties of humankind were granted not by man but by a creator. Such an idea cements those rights as natural and transcendent above the edicts and statutes of man (in this case, the tyranny of the British Empire). Those rights could not be infringed. This is why the constitution is held in such high regard with the patriotic demographic of the U.S. public sphere.

The Founding Fathers designed the federal government to function as a limited entity in service to the people. The Constitution itself is what the entire executive, judicial, and legislative branches are held accountable to. If that document is upheld, there could never be a monarch or king that abused their power, and the government would always be under a checks and balances system that preserves the natural law of the constitution. This is noted in the section titled The Preamble to The Bill of Rights.

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

On the 15th of December 1791, Congress amended the U.S. Constitution to include the Bill of Rights a series of amendments that established clarity on the limitations of governmental power and the natural rights owed to citizens. One of those amendments, the Second, is famously known as the right to bear arms. It reads:

Read Next: The second American revolution: What our constitution says about today's America

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.

This amendment is arguably one of the most controversial and contested components of the U.S. Constitution. In its very essence, the Second Amendment gives citizens the ability to form militias in the semblance of the local volunteer forces who fought the British in the American Revolution. It also grants the people the right to keep and bear arms, meaning they can lawfully possess firearms to use for self-defense and the defense of the country. This idea draws on the inalienable rights clause and promotes the sanctity of human life.

Going back to the forming of militias part, the Second Amendments functions keep the government in check in the case that it becomes tyrannical or oppressive. States having their own militias and citizens armed to the teeth were imagined to be a natural balance against the republics armed forces. In the forefathers eyes, the nations military is only meant to defend against foreign enemies, and the local militias were for domestic matters.

The current legal interpretation of the Second Amendment has been the subject of much controversy and argument both in the judicial system and the American public. The majority of conflict is over the right to bear arms clause, with a strict divide between the pro-gun and pro-gun control camps. But while personal gun ownership has been a common staple throughout the history of the nation, the concept of a militia is an area of legal contest.

The governments answer to a well-regulated militia is the United States National Guard, a volunteer reserve force that was activated countrywide in 1903. The National Guard falls under both the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force. It receives adequate government support as part of the annual national defense budget. In times of domestic hardship, the National Guard can be activated by the state governors or the president.

This has happened throughout the nations history. The Guard was most recently called to act as a protective force in cities affected by intense rioting during the ongoing social unrest that is driven by racial relations. The same social unrest that has led to the National Guards activation has created less conventional militia movements throughout the U.S. These controversial groups have their own mission and are subject to questioning in terms of legitimacy and legality. Nevertheless, two of them, the American Militia and Patriot Movements, are currently growing in strength and numbers.

The modern militia movements are still rather young compared to their ancestral counterparts. The motivation behind their creation was two domestic events that resulted in a governmental intervention.

The first of those two events was Ruby Ridge, an 11-day standoff that took place in Idaho from the 21st to the 31st of August 1992. Ex-Green Beret Randy Weaver was a man who subscribed to a doomsday-esque conspiracy theory derived from fundamentalist religious practices he and his family followed. His belief on impending doom led Weaver and his family to move off the grid onto a remote property in Idaho.

Weaver was the eventual subject of a federal investigation after being reported for reciting threatening rhetoric towards President Reagan and other government employees. This investigation led to the eventual arrest and indictment of Weaver for the manufacturing and possession of illegal weapons. Weaver had been amassing a personal arsenal in allegiance to his conspiratorial beliefs. This got the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) and the FBI involved.

Read Next: Op-Ed: The Founding Fathers wouldn't like either side of the gun control debate

A trial date was set for February of 1991, but Weaver never showed up. This led to a warrant being carried out for his arrest. The known intelligence about his compound, arsenal, and views on the government was factored in the sensitive operation to detain him. The U.S. Marshals utilized undercover officers to try and infiltrate his property and make the arrest.

On the first day of the siege, U.S. Marshals mistakenly alarmed Weaver while conducting reconnaissance. A firefight broke out resulting in the deaths of one U.S Marshal, Weavers 14-year-old son Sammy, and one of his family dogs. Weaver barricaded his family in the cabin while hundreds of law enforcement officers from multiple agencies swarmed the property. A few days later, an FBI sniper shot and killed Weavers wife Vicki while simultaneously injuring him and his friend Kevin Harris.

On the 31st of August, the stand-off ended with Weaver surrendering after being persuaded by a Green Beret named Bo Gritz. He had been brought in by law enforcement in an attempt to connect the two men over a shared experience. The siege resulted in protests and demonstrations in opposition to the governments actions that led to the killing of Vicki and Sammy Weaver.

In 1993, the year after Ruby Ridge, federal law enforcement became once again engaged in a stand-off plotline. In the city of Waco, Texas, a man named David Koresh was the spiritual leader of an offshoot sect of Christianity called the Branch Davidians. This sect held extreme and literalist views of Christian scripture and viewed Koresh as a Messianic figure who was leading them through the fulfillment of a claimed biblical prophecy. Koresh and his people resided at the Mount Carmel Center, a compound on the outskirts of Waco.

Koresh was importing and storing large quantities of illegal firearms and ammunition within the walls of Mount Carmel. That was eventually brought to the attention of the ATF through a local tip. The ATF conducted a raid on the compound on the 28th of February 1993. It resulted in multiple deaths on both sides.

In a similar fashion to Ruby Ridge, hundreds of federal law enforcement agents surrounded the compound and began attempts to negotiate with Koresh. The FBI Hostage Rescue and negotiation teams were unsuccessful at de-escalating the stand-off. This failure was later met with great public scrutiny.

The siege ended on April 19, 1993, after the FBI utilized tanks to penetrate the compound followed by canisters of tear gas. After finally breaking through, federal officers were able to enter Mount Carmel and investigate. Seventy-six bodies were discovered; the cause of death was either suicide or murder-suicide. Koresh was among those, as were 25 children.

Ruby Ridge and the Waco Siege represent a gross violation of government overstep in the eyes of some factions within the far-right side of the political spectrum. Starting around 1993, informal militia groups began organizing across the U.S. These groups were formed under the powers granted by the Second Amendment and through disdain for the state of the U.S. governments size and strength. Although each militia group is different, there are common values and ideas that bond them together:

To recap, the U.S. constitution has a unique clause that is commonly interpreted to allow for the formation and activation of local militia groups. These groups have a primary duty of upholding the constitution and preventing the rise and take-over of the country by a tyrannical government that would operate outside of the checks and balances system. The contemporary militia movement has been growing since the early 1990s and has had surges in activity and enlistment during the recent periods of political instability and civil unrest in the U.S.

The first rise in the modern militia movement was during the Obama Administration (2008 2016). The progressive politics and policies of President Obama were viewed as an existential threat to the Second Amendment and the social fabric of the nation. Out of the myriad of small militia groups and similar organizations, there are two that were formed during that period and that are the largest in the nation.

The Oath Keepers are a national organization formed in 2008 by Army veteran and Yale graduate Stewart Rhodes. The organization itself does not identify as a militia in the traditional sense, but it is a large benefactor within that community and shares the same views and values. As referenced on their homepage: Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders, who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.'

That oath, mandated by Article VI of the Constitution itself, is to the Constitution, not to the politicians. As such, Oath Keepers declare that they will not obey unconstitutional orders, such as orders to disarm the American people, to conduct warrantless searches, or to detain Americans as enemy combatants in violation of the ancient right to a jury trial.

While the exact number of members is not public knowledge, they claim that they are around 30,000-strong. That number is up for dispute by some researchers of the group. There is heavy marketing towards military personnel, veterans, and law enforcement, but being one is not a requirement to join.

The Three Percenters were formed in 2008 by Oath Keepers member Michael Mike Brian Vanderboegh. The two groups are loosely yet not officially connected. According to their official website: The Three Percenters Original is a national organization made up of patriotic citizens who love their country, their freedoms, and their liberty. We are committed to standing against and exposing corruption and injustice.

When it comes to values and ideology, the Three Percenters have similarities to the Oath Keepers: the defense of the Second Amendment, an anti-government sentiment, and the promotion of an armed and politically informed public. They do not claim to be a militia. They have chapters spanning across the country. The term 3 Percenter has its roots in the groups claim that only 3 percent of the population fought against the British in the Revolutionary War.

These two organizations are part of a national community that involves smaller militias. Most of them are active in the Midwest and South. Collectively, these groups are currently a part of the national conversation in the U.S., primarily considering recent actions during the ongoing social unrest.

It is not much of a secret, but America is having some issues right now. Ever since the controversial 2016 election of President Donald J. Trump, there has been an ever-growing divide between political ideologies and social justice views. Tribalism and deeply rooted beliefs have manifested themselves in demonstrations and protests against the Trump Administration, as well as in counter-protests in support.

The current social unrest stems from protests against law enforcement, primarily local and state police. A string of incidents involving black citizens being killed at the hands of local police ignited the tensions already in place from the pandemic and political tribalism. These killings resulted in malevolent groups going to major urban centers with the intent of causing riots and anarchy under the guise of protest.

There is a distinct difference between the peaceful and social-oriented demonstrations and the violent and destructive ones, but either way, both have produced a furthering of the political divide. Cities like Portland, Seattle, Louisville, and Minneapolis have been the subject of property destruction, violence, and brutal clashes between protestors, counter-protestors, and law enforcement.

Armed militia groups have started to show up in cities rife with rioting, looting, and destruction of property. This was done in defiance of local law enforcement and as a practical demonstration of the ideologies these groups subscribe to. Militia members from the Oath Keepers, Three Percenters, and affiliate groups have been seen at protests. They have been heavily armed (firearms and tactical kit) and in a defensive posture. While the militiamen have remained generally peaceful, a recent incidentadded to the social chaos.

A police shooting of a black man on the 23rd of August 2020 in Kenosha, WI led to civil unrest and rioting. On the 25th of August 2020, a teenager named Kyle Rittenhouse, who self-identified with the militia movement, shot and killed two protestors while injuring a third. The act was claimed to be in self-defense, as the rioters were in pursuit of Rittenhouse. Nonetheless, his actions brought up the question of the legality and purpose of vigilantism and of militia groups taking law into their own hands.

In the coming months leading up to the November 2020 presidential election, there will highly likely continue to be an increase in self-identifying militiamen and organizations. No matter what the outcome of the election, civil unrest is likely going to continue amid the aforementioned tensions that have been building up for years.

In the case that riots continue, and politics divide the nation more, it is likely that militia groups will view that as a threat to the nations security. In the case that the presidency is won by Democratic candidate Joe Biden, right-wing groups will perceive a larger threat to the constitution due to the Democrats increasingly progressive nature and open talk of swiftly legislating long-desired gun control measures.

One can only hope that something can re-unify the United States. The unfortunate reality is that some feel it is already too late

This article was written by Michael Ellmer and originally published on Grey Dynamics.

See the article here:

The Patriot Movement: The History and State of American Militia - SOFREP

To the Editor:

Robert Thomas is running for the U.S. House of Representatives, District 4. A strong supporter of the Second Amendment, he is for building the wall in opposing illegal immigration into the United States.

Incumbent Ted Budd is running for re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives, District 13. A strong proponent of the Second Amendment, Budd owns a gun range in Rural Hall.

Tom Glendinning is running for the N.C. State Senate, District 23. Attentive to safety and security, he is a strong advocate for property rights. Glendinning opposes discrimination against seniors.

George Gilson Jr. is running for the N.C. State House, District 54. A strong supporter of the Second Amendment, he believes in small government and personal accountability. Gilson opposes excessive tax and runaway spending. Opposed to open borders, he favors a voter ID law.

Jay Stobbs is running for the Chatham County Board of Commissioners, District 1. Opposed to raising property and sales taxes in Chatham County, and against removal of the Chatham County Confederate statue, Stobbs is committed to safeguarding farmlands in the western part of Chatham County from land-use zoning.

Jimmy Pharr is a candidate for the Chatham County Board of Commissioners, District 2. Pharr is against raising property and sales taxes, removal of the Confederate statue and zoning of farmlands in the western part of Chatham County.

Andy Wilkie is an incumbent candidate for the Chatham County Board of Commissioners, District 5. He created the Project Help non-profit for serving the homeless people in Sanford. Commissioner Wilkie is on the side of holding down taxes, respecting status quo of the Confederate statue and protecting farmlands in the western part of Chatham County.

Ryan Armstrong is running for the Chatham County Board of Education, District 1. In favor of competent preparedness and effective communications, Armstrong wants to be a voice for teachers, students and parents. In advocating a two-tier revolving teaching schedule, he supports live-streaming classes.

Dennis Lewis is running for the Chatham County Board of Education, District 2. Promising to be a voice for parents on the board, he favors hybrid teaching that includes options for in-class and online teaching. Lewis advocates attention to STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics) and trade skills. Along with ensuring bandwidth access in rural areas, he would introduce JROTC (Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps) in schools.

Rolin Mainuddin

Chapel Hill

Read more from the original source:

Letter to the Editor: Vote for Chatham County Republican candidates - The Chatham News + Record

Election officials and voting rights groups across the country are preparing to respond to unrest at the polls even though its unclear how real the threat of Election Day violence or armed intimidation may be.

Authorities emphasize that they are not responding to any specific threats of violence at polling places and that theyre concerned about the potential for scaring off voters. But there is more than enough reason to be on alert. In recent months, armed militia groups and vigilantes have shown up at Black Lives Matter marches and numerous armed protesters have descended on state capitols to oppose COVID-19 restrictions. The general public is anxious about the divisive political climate and gun sales have been surging. President Donald Trumps unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud also havent helped.

We consulted experts and took stock of the legal and practical landscape in several swing states.

Theres a widespread sense that the risk of Election Day violence is much greater this year, although researchers say theres little hard evidence to back up the collective anxiety. Online, there are few indications that extremist groups have plans to show up at polling stations or insert themselves into the democratic process. I am not seeing very much discussion about election poll watching at all, said Megan Squire, a researcher at Elon University who tracks extremists online. Maybe they dont want to talk about it this far out, or maybe theyll make the decision at the last minute. But I am not seeing a lot of it.

Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, the battleground states chief elections officer, told The Trace that he, too, is struggling to assess the general threat level. How much of this is bravado? he asked. How much of it is posturing and posing versus an actual threat, violent or otherwise, armed or otherwise?

You know, you dont want to not talk about it and sweep it under the rug, and pretend its nothing, Simon said of the risk of intimidation at the polls. But you dont want to talk about it so much and so breathlessly that people say, Oh, my God, this place is a deathtrap. Im not going to go vote. Thats the balance.

While its impossible to quantify the chances of conflict, Squire said radical groups have been emboldened by the presidents rhetoric, which she worries may lead to unplanned altercations between impromptu demonstrations or conflicts stoked by extremists who may feel they have permission to act as vigilantes.

Simon expressed concern about demonstrations escalating outside of polling places, though they may not have been organized to intimidate voters. What if the Trump campaign mobilizes and the Biden campaign counter mobilizes, sending people to polling places and even though it wont be inside, what if we have 20 people or more from each campaign and a recipe for real conflict? he asked.

The announcement on October 8 that federal officials and state law enforcement in Michigan had arrested 13 men with a terrorist plot to take hostage Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer has brought heightened attention to the issue of unlawful militia groups.

Mary McCord, a former assistant attorney general for national security at the Department of Justice who now heads Georgetown Law Schools Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, said increased militia activity this year at anti-racism protests and at state capitols over COVID-19 restrictions are cause for concern.

Weve seen their increasing public presence this year, McCord said. We do have some concern that some of these armed extremist groups will take it upon themselves to deploy.

McCords institute has been tracking extremist groups and its intelligence suggests that they are trying to send small contingents of armed members to the polls, she said.

McCord also pointed out that the leader of the Oathkeepers, a far-right militia group with adherents nationwide, recently said publicly that his group is gearing up to do the same. But that particular group is known for exaggeration and made the same promise in 2016. Neo-Nazi and QAnon extremist groups have made similar claims, which some say should also be treated skeptically because, as in 2016, their threats may not translate into action. Other paramilitary groups, like the Three Percenters, are using the election as a recruitment tool, because who knows whats going to happen after that, one Three Percenter militia leader said.

Militias aside, guns at polling places remain a concern, and the line between legally carrying a weapon and using one to intimidate voters is quite thin. In 2016, when Guns Down America opened up a hotline for voters to call if they spotted guns at polling places and felt intimidated, 85 voters in 28 states reported firearms on Election Day. Many of these instances could have been people legally bringing their guns to polling places just as they would to the grocery store or church.

Guns Down America and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and separately the human rights group Amnesty International have issued calls for states to clarify their laws and explicitly ban guns at polling places, saying that the presence of firearms could escalate an already volatile political climate.

Only six states have laws that generally prohibit guns in polling places, and at least five battleground states Virginia, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin have no such laws in place. On October 16, however, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson issued a directive banning the open carry of firearms in a polling place or the 100-foot buffer zone outside one. Prohibiting the open-carry of firearms in areas where citizens cast their ballots is necessary to ensure every voter is protected, she said.

Firearms may not be allowed inside buildings that are often used as polling locations and where guns are already banned, like some houses of worship or a government building. But in states with permissive laws, carrying a gun into the polls is legal unless it is brandished or otherwise used to intimidate voters.

We have a concealed carry law, Simon, the Minnesota secretary of state, said. Weve had occasional not frequent, but occasional calls from voters who are pretty freaked out about that. Simon added that he has no authority to change the states laws on his own.

The presidents rhetoric has given election officials, particularly in battleground states like Minnesota, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Wisconsin, extra reason to worry. They fret that dozens of unofficial poll watchers might show up to monitor the election. That concern is particularly pronounced in states with lax gun laws and amid an ongoing pandemic during which crowded polling locations could potentially intimidate voters.

The pandemic made the gathering of signatures risky, thwarting reform efforts in Ohio, Oregon, and Oklahoma.

byJennifer Mascia

Plus, the 2020 presidential election will be the first in three decades in which the Republican National Committee (RNC) is free of a court consent decree that limited its ability to organize poll watchers because of concerns of voter intimidation. The decree dated back to 1982 when the Democratic National Committee sued the RNC, alleging that the party tried to discourage Black people from voting by posting armed, off-duty law enforcement officers at the polls in non-white neighborhoods. But a federal judge appointed by President Barack Obama allowed that consent decree to expire at the end of 2017.

Election officials want to make it clear that they are taking every precaution to ensure a safe voting experience. Simon said that, in his state, as in many others, poll watchers must be designated in writing by a political party, and have a limited range of motion and narrow authority within polling places.

No one can just show up and say, Hey, here I am, Im the Democrat or the Republican and you gotta let me in, Simon said.

In most states, poll watchers sometimes called challengers or election observers, depending on the range of authorized activity are only allowed to observe the process, watch for abnormalities, and track turnout. They are not allowed to disrupt the voting or counting process.

In nearly every state where watchers or challengers are allowed, there is a limit of one per precinct per major party, with some states requiring the observer to be a registered voter in that precinct. In some states, like Minnesota, challengers are allowed to contest a voters eligibility, but only under strict conditions.

Experts told The Trace that unjustified claims attempting to cast doubt on the legitimacy of mail-in voting, which have been propagated by the president, may encourage extremists to act but that there is not any legal basis for them to do so. There is no authority under federal or state law for armed groups of individuals to self deploy and undertake legitimate law enforcement or legitimate militia activities, McCord said. Theres a lot of gray area in what the Second Amendment protects and doesnt protect. But this is an area thats crystal clear.

Statutes prohibiting private militias have been upheld by the Supreme Court since the Reconstruction Era, and in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court ruled that the Second Amendment does not prevent states from banning paramilitary organizations.

Across the country, election officials are taking precautions to make polling places as safe as possible and free of intimidation tactics. The FBI, in conjunction with local authorities, has been conducting drills to improve responses to reports of violence or intimidation.

In North Carolina, where early voting began Oct. 15, the states chief election officer issued a lengthy memo warning that voter intimidation is a violation of both state and federal law, that buffer zones outside polls will be enforced, and that poll watchers must be formally appointed. The State Board is committed to ensuring all voters have a safe voting experience, free from intimidation and harassment, said Karen Brinson Bell, executive director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections. Regardless of political affiliation, every voter deserves to cast their ballot in peace.

In North Carolina and Minnesota, local poll workers are being given specific guidance about what to do if things get out of control. In most states, police are prohibited from being stationed at polls because they can be intimidating. But poll workers are being trained in de-escalation and are told to call local law enforcement in the event of a conflict.

In Pennsylvania, which is a key battleground state that could determine the outcome of the election, Philadelphia officials assembled an Election Day task force to be prepared to investigate and prosecute any voter intimidation.

Anyone who comes to the cradle of American democracy to try to suppress the vote and violate the law and commits crimes is going to find themselves in a jail cell talking to a Philadelphia jury to try to explain why they thought that was OK, said Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner at a press conference on October 7. It is not OK.

To Kevin Johnson, concerns about voter intimidation and voter suppression are part of the American story particularly for Black Americans who faced violence to gain the right to vote. For decades, they have endured suppression tactics, ranging from laws that disproportionately impact Black voters to violence.

This is nothing new, he said, but its sad that we still have to deal with it. This is the current conversation, but its not a new phenomenon when we look back historically over this countrys history.

Johnson, a pastor and community activist who serves as a chair of the Poor Peoples Campaign in Detroit, has worked for the past 30 years on gun violence prevention in the city. Nationally, the Poor Peoples Campaign is calling on people of faith to lead the way to polls and to encourage their members and congregations to vote as part of the M.O.R.E. initiative, which stands for mobilize, organize, register, and educate.

Also in Detroit, Ponsella Hardaway, the executive director of the community organization MOSES, said its organizers are working to prevent conflict by encouraging early voting and organizing groups to vote at the county clerks office together. They believe lowering the stakes of Election Day itself may reduce the risk, but theyre still holding training sessions in preparation.

Our staff has been a part of training for how to de-escalate conflicts, Hardaway said. People are really gearing up to make sure that people are safe and making sure that people understand some of the strategies to be observant at the polls and watch for things that may not be right.

Hardaway, though, also noted that there is a fine line between acknowledging the threat and overestimating it. We know that intimidation has always been a tactic, she said. We want to make sure that there are more people in support of more peace than agitation.

Read more from the original source:

Election Officials Are Planning for Conflict They Hope Wont Materialize - The Trace

Chris Truax, Opinion columnist Published 7:00 a.m. ET Oct. 17, 2020 | Updated 2:31 p.m. ET Oct. 17, 2020

Thinking of sitting out the election? Here's why your vote counts. Register, verify your status or request an absentee ballot at vote.usatoday.com. USA TODAY

If you subvert our democracy, your acts will neither be forgotten nor forgiven. Sooner or later, justice will find you, even if Trump wins reelection.

The last four years have made it clear that our institutions are suffering from too many years of deferred maintenance. Thats why Ive been participating in the Guardrails of Democracy Project, an informal think tank made up of conservative, often Republican, lawyers who have grown increasingly concerned about the health of our democracy. Guardrails of Democracy is about identifying reforms designed to reinvigorate and secure our existing system of checks and balances.

To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, were soldiering through this election season with the checks and balances weve got. And it'sgoing to be bad. The FBI has already broken up a serious plot to kidnap one and maybe twositting governors, and authorities are bracing for the worst. In a recent poll, 55%of Americans said they anticipate violence in the elections aftermath.

So we will launch this project by reviewing some of the guardrails that have been created with just such a situation in mind. While this is a discussion of federal law, lots of state laws would apply, too.

First, the big one, seditious conspiracy. If you conspire to use force to hinder the application of any federal law or to seize federal property, you will spend up to 20 years in prison. Note that you dont have to actually succeed. The essence of conspiracy is communication and agreement so you have committed seditious conspiracy even if you are simply planning this kind of activity, even if it is just over the internet. Oath Keepers, Proud Boysand other assorted militia organizations, take note.

There are several laws that criminalize interfering with an election or a vote count. For example, its a felony to attempt to intimidate voters or to attempt to interfere with voting. That means that while poll-watching is legal in most cases, poll watchers walk a fine line and had better be on their best behavior. It is most definitely not the moment to exercise your Second Amendment rights unless you fancy spending up to 10 years in federal prison.

Federal law views having armed people of any sort at the polls very seriously, much less potential vigilantes. Its a felony for even a government official to send armed men to the polls. And theres no exception for the attorney general or the president, on the contrary. That statute also runs right down the chain of command, so if armed federal agents were to show up at a polling place, everyone who had a hand in deploying them would be facing up to five years in prison. I was just following orders. wont be a defense.

William Null (R), one of the men arrested for plotting to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, in Lansing on April 30, 2020.(Photo: JEFF KOWALSKY, AFP via Getty Images)

Heres one you probably hadnt considered: a statute thatmakes it felony to make a false statement about a material fact to the federal government or to falsify, concealor cover up a material fact from the federal government. Normally, this statute is used when people outside the government are filing reports and answering questions. But there is nothing in the statute that would prevent employees and officers of the federal government from being prosecuted for making false statements or trying to hide the truth in an effort to influence government action.

So to anyone who might be pressured to come up with some handy facts about mail-in ballots and election fraud: Beware. There is no evidence that mail-in ballots are particularly likely to be fraudulent and any statements you might make to the contrary or any other effort you might make to hide or distort the truth could earn you up to five years in prison.

Texas GOP death wish: One dropbox in a county of 4.7 million people

Theseconcerns are very real. President Donald Trump could not be making it clearer that he is going to push our democracy to the limit and, perhaps, beyond. He's spent months attempting to undermine our faith in the election, refused repeated opportunities to say that he would abide by the result, and, with his order to stand back and stand by, appointed the Proud Boys as the paramilitary wing of Trump's version of Nixon's 1971Committee to Re-Elect the President.

But the situation we find ourselves in is not entirely unprecedented. The original Committee to Re-Elect the President was an arm of the Nixon campaign set up to engage in various illegal activities to make sure Nixon won the 1972 presidential election. Most of the members of the committee went to prison when their activities became public. Should the election and its aftermath be a train wreck, history is going to repeat itself.

First in their sights: A kidnap and murder plot targeted Gretchen Whitmer. It's no coincidence she's a woman.

If you are tempted to put your thumb on the election scale, do not try and fool yourself that this will never come out. Should Joe Biden become president, I have no doubt that one of the first orders of business will be a full and public investigation of what happened during the election. And even if Donald Trump should retain the presidency, the federal statute of limitations is at least five years for most crimes. The mills of the criminal justice system may grind slowly, but they grind incredibly fine. If you take action to subvert our democracy, your acts will neither be forgotten nor forgiven. Sooner or later, justice will find you.

In the end, it isnt just Americas guardrails that are being tested. Americans are being tested. We live in a particular time. On Nov. 3, we have a choice to make, not just between candidates, but between democratic values on one hand, and fear and anger on the other. Choose wisely. We are all going to live with those choices for a very long time.

Republican Chris Truax, an appellate lawyer in San Diego and CEO of CertifiedVoter.com, isa member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/10/17/trump-pushing-democracy-limit-dont-break-laws-for-him-column/3657668001/

Read the rest here:

Trump is pushing democracy to the limit and beyond. Don't go to prison for him. - USA TODAY