Looks like Antifa now has a state

[randy]

I'm pretty sure that's treason against the State of Washington and against the United States.

Treason against the US? Yes

Against the State of Washington? Meh. Allegiance to an individual state to the level where "disloyalty" to it constitutes treason pretty much quit being a thing in 1865.

My Commissioning Oath was to the Constitution of the United States. I have no particular loyalty to the state I happen to be living in. Preferences as to local cultural and legal climate? Yes. Loyalty? not so much.

[Vonz90]

I'm pretty sure that's treason against the State of Washington and against the United States.

Treason against the US? Yes

Against the State of Washington? Meh. Allegiance to an individual state to the level where "disloyalty" to it constitutes treason pretty much quit being a thing in 1865.

My Commissioning Oath was to the Constitution of the United States. I have no particular loyalty to the state I happen to be living in. Preferences as to local cultural and legal climate? Yes. Loyalty? not so much.

+1

[Langenator]

And now, apparently, they're low on food...genius level thinking, truly.

(Sorry, I found the image on Michael Z. Williamson's FB feed, and don't feel like going through the trouble of hosting it over to imgur or whatever.)

https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=5F05DDBB

[Weetabix]

"vegan meat substitutes, fruits, oats, soy products, etc."

[blackeagle603]

Disengaging, pulling back, containing them letting get their wish may have been a bit of genius Judo move by the police.


The revolution almost always eats its own given time.

[Jered]

Treason against the US? Yes
Against the State of Washington? Meh. Allegiance to an individual state to the level where "disloyalty" to it constitutes treason pretty much quit being a thing in 1865.

I actually looked up the RCW on treason and what it means by "levying war."

When persons arise in insurrection with intent to prevent, in general, by force and intimidation, the execution of a statute of this state, or to force its repeal, they shall be guilty of levying war.

Also:

Treason is a class A felony and punishable by death.

Then there's this, too:

Every person having knowledge of the commission of treason, who conceals the same, and does not, as soon as may be, disclose such treason to the governor or a justice of the supreme court or a judge of either the court of appeals or the superior court, shall be guilty of misprision of treason and punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in a state correctional facility for not more than five years or in a county jail for up to three hundred sixty-four days.

Washington didn't become a state until 1889, so, it's not so much "loyalty" to the state because the Civil War was recent enough to impart that lesson. It doesn't have to do with loyalty or disloyalty to the state, it's that these people intend to prevent the execution of the laws of the state of Washington. In this case, it's entirely apt to charge them with treason against the State of Washington because of their actions.

[Netpackrat]

Treason against the US? Yes
Against the State of Washington? Meh. Allegiance to an individual state to the level where "disloyalty" to it constitutes treason pretty much quit being a thing in 1865.

I actually looked up the RCW on treason and what it means by "levying war."

When persons arise in insurrection with intent to prevent, in general, by force and intimidation, the execution of a statute of this state, or to force its repeal, they shall be guilty of levying war.

Also:

Treason is a class A felony and punishable by death.

Then there's this, too:

Every person having knowledge of the commission of treason, who conceals the same, and does not, as soon as may be, disclose such treason to the governor or a justice of the supreme court or a judge of either the court of appeals or the superior court, shall be guilty of misprision of treason and punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in a state correctional facility for not more than five years or in a county jail for up to three hundred sixty-four days.

Washington didn't become a state until 1889, so, it's not so much "loyalty" to the state because the Civil War was recent enough to impart that lesson. It doesn't have to do with loyalty or disloyalty to the state, it's that these people intend to prevent the execution of the laws of the state of Washington. In this case, it's entirely apt to charge them with treason against the State of Washington because of their actions.

You know, I am not sure if that is a precedent we in the 2A community want set.

[Jered]

You've got a point.

I just quoted one sentence of the definition, though, because there's also this:

But an endeavor, although by numbers and force of arms, to resist the execution of a law in a single instance, and for a private purpose, is not levying war.

[Netpackrat]

Of course, ultimately the winners will decide what was legal or not. The Constitution being the highest law of the land, those trying to enforce gun laws are the ones guilty of treason.

[D5CAV]

Of course, ultimately the winners will decide what was legal or not. The Constitution being the highest law of the land, those trying to enforce gun laws are the ones guilty of treason.

+1

After the Civil War, a reporter asked one of the Supremes about the Constitutionality of States seceding prior to the Civil War. It was an obvious question because Congress (without any representation from occupied territories in the Southern States) was debating the 14th Amendment, which has language specifically prohibiting a State from seceding. If it was already prohibited in the Constitution, then why add the language? The Supreme answered that the Confederate States had every right to secede prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment.

When this reporter asked then President Grant what he thought of the Supreme's comment and the legality of secession prior to 1861 he said, "This has already been settled on a higher court than the Supreme Court. It has been settled on the field of battle."

Grant has good company; Caesar, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Stalin and Mao would all agree with him.