Steve MacDonald: Vermont, which exists because of a militia, just banned them

The following commentary by Steve MacDonald has been republished with permission from GraniteGrok.

The history of Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys has some odd turns, but the result was Vermont. It is a state that exists because of a militia that just banned militias:

Vermont on Monday made it a crime to own or operate paramilitary training camps in the state after Republican Gov. Phil Scott signed legislation introduced in response to a firearms training facility built without permits that neighbors called a menace.

Violators face up to five years in prison or a fine up to $50,000 or both, according to the law. It prohibits a person from teaching, training, or demonstrating to anyone else the use, application, or making of a firearm, explosive, or incendiary device capable of causing injury or death that will be used in or in furtherance of a civil disorder. It also bans a person from assembling with others for such training, instruction or practice.

According to the report, the law does not prohibit,

  • Legitimate law enforcement activity
  • Lawful activity … where military science is taught.
  • Self-defense instruction or practice without the intent of causing a civil disorder.
  • Firearms instruction is intended to teach the safe handling and use of firearms.
  • Lawful sports or activities like hunting, target shooting, and firearms collection.

In other words, Vermont Democrats have created an incrementalist loophole in the law for redefining legal activity regarding firearms training.

To be clear, we accept that there are or may be individuals or groups who gather and train to do what Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys did beginning in 1770. A “militia organized to defend the property rights of local residents…”

They are also credited with stopping,

“… sheriffs from enforcing New York laws and terrorized settlers who had New York grants, burning buildings, stealing cattle, and administering occasional floggings with birch rods.

We are not condoning civil war or paramilitary interventions, but you can’t escape the irony. Given the current decline in rights, New York has clearly won control over the “land grants,” and modern Vermont Democrats mean to ensure things stay that way (politically), no matter how despotic their designs on power.

Make no mistake. This law will develop a case of mission creep in successive legislatures as progressive gun grabbers in Montpelier find new and exciting definitions for “legal activity” and “civil disorder.”

You can count on it.

And one more bit of irony. If ever the state has a need to contain or suppress an alleged militia, they can call on the Vermont Air National Guard for support – nicknamed ‘The Green Mountain Boys.’

Image courtesy of Public domain

11 thoughts on “Steve MacDonald: Vermont, which exists because of a militia, just banned them

  1. The militia-military of the United States, was as genius as any thing else in the framing of our nation. It was a mean to have a ready military in case of invasion, without also having a standing army, which was so prone to engage of far away adventures/wars. Full time solders are trained to do one thing – make war. The militia by contrast learns to be a solder, but also had a trade or other skill, which is how he supports his family, so he is almost never eager to go make war in some faraway land.

    We should do all we can to bring back the militia. That is the only solution that can both protect our nation and keep us out of the endless cycle of wars.

    • You wonder this: “We should do all we can to bring back the militia…”. Hate to tell you that the Leftist Progressive’s are WAAAAY ahead of you (w/ militia’s). They don’t need what you imagine as a classic “militia”- with weapons…They have it all set up (skillfully done over 40 years in VT) to take over ALL they need via controlling the Courts, the Judges, the Prosecutors… and MAJORITY of the Legislature….and they control (via NEA) Union all child education K-12 (brainwash). After that they all control progressive Colleges and Univ’s…to cement the indoctrination. But there IS A MILITIA operating…it is the MILITIA of —“LOBBY & LAWFARE”…and that is funded by George Soros (Sarah George in BTV)…the the VANDERBILTS & ROCKEFELLERS….all of them inside the uber-rich-land: Shelburne Farms…and another uber progressive donor is the Lintillac Foundation. Just like Rockefellers and Vanderbilts…the Lintillac Foundation came from a corporate founding ….AIG Insurance. IMO, the TOP FIVE Trust Fund babies $$$$$$$$$ all came from old corporate wealth…and ALL of these people are the ones who today FUND THE ACTUAL LOBBY & LAWFARE “Militia’s” in Montpelier…behind the scenes, all anon….. Who needs militia guns!!! Why bother…when you have massive money $$$ to BUY YOUR own the Courts, the Judges…you own Prosecutors to do what they are told…you OWN K-12 education, you OWN Colleges and Univ’s… you OWN the VT Legislature…and they already OWN 90% of all VT MEDIA!…The final blow is they own every single evil-Eco-Climate-Lobby group in Montpelier.

      Militia “guys with guns” are dopes & fools.. youare 10,000% “outgunned” and out of yoiur lague…out maneuvered!. Get used to it. “VTGON”,….the sooner you all wake up and see the TRUTH…the better your life will be – to get out. You are on this earth – ONCE. Stay in VT at your own, miserable, poorer, risk.

  2. They cannot override the Constitution of the United States. Militias are what keep excess Government in control. Checks and balances, checks and balances. Vermont has ALWAYS over reacted to events. It was a man on his own land practicing to keep his countryman free. Yes the neighbors didn’t like it. And yes they may have been a little over zealous in the neighborhood. But according to the constitution he had the right to have people peaceably assemble and train as a militia at any time he wanted to.

  3. 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.

    Looks like the legislature missed the part about militias. They also missed the word, unconstitutional and our governor signed this law. Oh, and they skipped over article 16 and the right of people to gather to protest the government. I had no idea that a group of Vermont elite lawmakers had the power to over rule the Constitution of the United States. Can’t wait to see this in court.

  4. From the web site Bearing Arms by Glyon Oct. 5th 2013


    The Supreme Court in the Heller decision explained that the second amendment guarantees an individual right of the people to keep and carry arms for their defense in the event of a confrontation. The anti-gun crowd, however, refuses to accept this common sense reading of the amendment. The best way to interpret the Constitution begins with actually reading it.  The next best thing is to read what the Constitution’s chief drafter, James Madison, had to say about America’s founding document.  Madison was the chief author of the Federalist Papers, along with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton.  The Federalist Papers offer great insight into the political theories of the day that led to our system of government.

    Students of the second amendment should be familiar with both Federalist 29 and 46, which discuss the role of an armed populace in protecting the precious freedom which had so recently been won.  It was that thinking that led to the adoption of the second amendment.

    Madison was also the original drafter of the Bill of Rights, including what would become the second amendment. The anti-gun crowd regularly accuse second amendment supporters of only focusing on what Justice Scalia called the operative clause of the second amendment, the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  They assert that we ignore the prefatory clause that reads, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.”  To them the prefatory clause confirms that the purpose of the amendment was to protect the right of the states to have militias or as they sometimes phrase it, the right to bear arms when in militia service.

    However, beyond that, they never exactly explain what is meant by “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The anti-gun crowd cling to the so-called collective rights view of the amendment that held sway with a number of federal circuit courts pre-Heller.  However, beyond denying an individual right to keep and bear arms, those courts said precious little on exactly what the amendment actually protected.

    It was commonly stated outside the court room that the operative clause meant that the federal government could not disarm the state militias.  But that is not what the amendment says and no federal circuit court actually provided any reasoned discussion supporting such an interpretation.  In any event, if that were what the amendment was meant to accomplish, one would think the amendment would have been written in some way like “A well-regulated militia being necessary for a free state, Congress shall not infringe the right of the states to arm the militia.” However, this interpretation of the amendment would have worked a radical transformation of Congress’s power over the militia.  The Constitution addresses the militia in Article I, Section 8.  It states “The Congress shall have the power … To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 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.”

    Thus, it was Congress’s responsibility, not the states, to organize and arm the militia, with the states having only the responsibility to appoint officers and train the militia as Congress mandates.   The militia is not treated by the Constitution as a creature of the several states, but of the nation as a whole to be organized, armed and disciplined by Congress, while being trained by the states as Congress directs.
    Congress has in fact exercised this authority.
    Title 10 of the United States Code, Section 311 defines the militia of the United States with certain exceptions as “all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and … under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and … female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.”  The National Guard is the organized militia and the unorganized militia consists of those militia members not in the Guard.  In the Second Militia Act, passed in 1792, Congress specified the arms militia members were to have.  It was incumbent on militia members to report for training and duty with their own arms. The second amendment did not change Congress’s authority over the militia, nor was that the intent of the amendment.  Most notably, the second amendment did not provide that the states would or could arm the militia.  If that were the meaning of the second amendment, then states could be free to arm the militia in any way they saw fit.  States could for instance under the collective rights view of the second amendment, authorize each member of the unorganized militia to own a fully automatic weapon such as the M-16.  That would raise issues with respect to the provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934, which greatly restricts the ownership and transfer of automatic weapons.  States could also abrogate many other federal firearm restrictions. It is certainly the case that some founders, such as Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, feared that Congress would neglect its responsibility to arm the militia.  And so, it is not an unreasonable view that a primary purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that the militia would not be disarmed by taking guns away from the people who constituted the militia.

  5. Just call them community protection teams, like the old community watch. With the influx of invaders over the boarders we should be able to protect ourselves under the constitution. The government IS afraid of what a militia would do to them and that should be allowed as was the intent of the 2nd amendment. If their afraid then their doing something akin to the freedoms we were guaranteed. As voters have become more stupid it might come down to a militia protecting our freedom like the Green Mountain Boys did.

  6. This will indeed be an incrementalist erosion of lawful gun owners’ rights. The progressive/liberal /democrats will redefine what constitutes a legal or an illegal discharge and the area that discharge can or cannot occur.
    If there is a Rod and Gun Club, a summer camp, or a Boy Scout or Girl Scout camp, where people learn firearms use and hunter safety, or your own or your neighbor’s back lots where you’ve always gone to target shoot or just ‘plink,’ these fools will find a way to make the venue and activities illegal. Good Lord, the Scouts wear uniforms and march to and from places, and have secret salutes and hand shakes. Definitely Militia!
    This is just the beginning if we allow it to continue…

    • Will this then render Hunter Safety Training, which includes instruction in the safe handling and use of firearms, into “paramilitary training”? Watch out for this one, folks.!

    • They are scared there might still be a few “Green Mountain Boys” around getting tired of New York attempting to take over Vermont again.

  7. I suppose that these Militia types practice WARFARE things. If they are now banned….why doesn’t VT thus equally ban the “Eco-Terrorist- Climate-Lobbyist-Militia’s”… who engage in LAWFARE?

Comments are closed.