Massive Federal Raid in Lenawee County (Militia raided)

[shadowrider]

--snip--

Michael Lackomar is a member of the Michigan militia, which was not part of the raids.
Lackomar told Action News the group that is being targeted is an extremist religious militia.

That group's web site shows training videos of men wearing camouflage, carrying rifles, and maneuvering through rough terrain. The site also includes information similar to a manifesto, that says members need to be ready for the Anti-Christ and that Jesus wants members to be ready to defend themselves with the sword.

http://www.wxyz.com/news/story/Massive-Federal-Raid-in-Lenawee-County/eE6ZljBWa0uFOMUdtOLzvw.cspx

The article doesn't mention exactly what this group did that was illegal.
Does this mean paintballers wearing camouflage, carrying (paintball) rifles and maneuvering through rough terrain are also under survelliance?

[midnight]

1. Can't the feds work with these state legislatures that are passing open carry laws?

[pipoman]

8. Most states have allowed open carry since the very beginning

of their state, damned few are passing any new laws....now new CCW laws are in fact being passed like Iowa getting ready to pass shall issue and AZ getting ready to allow for unlicensed ccw.

[slackmaster]

10. What does plotting to kill police officers have to do with open carry?

:shrug:

[Historic NY]

2. go check the postings from yesterday,,,,this isn't a paintball group

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8037125&mesg_id=8037125

[shadowrider]

3. I didn't say they were

Simply said there was no info available in the article on exactly what they did that was illegal. Is rummaging through rough terrain now grounds for FBI monitoring?

[safeinOhio]

4. Stay tuned

Federal indictments to be opened today in court. Rumors(FOXnews) has everything from illegal firearms, bomb making to planing attacks on Jews and Muslims. If you go to their website you'll see they are crazy. No law against being crazy until you plan crazy stuff.

[shadowrider]

5. And if that's what they were doing

They deserve to get raided. Just that there was no mention in the article.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. The article doesn't mention exactly what this group did that was illegal.

"Federal charges include Seditious Conspiracy, Attempt to Use Weapons of Mass Destruction, Teaching/Demonstrating Use of Explosive Materials and two counts of Carrying, Using and Posessing a Firearm During and in Relation to a Crime of Violence."

I think that bomb factories are generally considered illegal.

[safeinOhio]

7. Plotting to kill a law enforcement officer

is damn close to illegal.

[Hoopla Phil]

14. "Attempt to Use Weapons of Mass Destruction" This is very interesting. Were they trying to

make chemical weapons or something? I really wish the warrants were not sealed.

[gorfle]

9. Plotting to kill police.

The news is now saying they were plotting to kill police officers.

In any case, if you read these people's web site, you will see that though they call themselves a militia they are really religious wackos with guns. They are American Taliban.

[Hoopla Phil]

12. As long as the plotting was not done by the Feds on the inside that is.

I'm just saying - remember John Delorean? The Feds have done it in the past and will most likely do it again. Please see my post numbered 11.

[Hoopla Phil]

11. I'm still waiting to see what the real charges filed are. Hope it is not

under seal also - like the warrants are. This hole operation sounds very fishy to me. If the plan to kill a cop is correct why is this stretched over 3-5 states (depending on which news sources you look at)? Also, these charges that are being talked about, where is the source of this? Are the Feds now talking?

"Charges":

*Seditious Conspiracy - WTF is this? Are we actually going to charge people with sedition again? God help us if the Rethugs get power again and use this example.

*Attempt to Use Weapons of Mass Destruction - Sounds like a real charge but it will depend on how far the "attempt" went and how much the "man inside" pushed this agenda. (And don't doubt for a second that there was not a Fed on the inside)

*Teaching/Demonstrating Use of Explosive Materials - WTF?! This is protected free speech. You may not agree with it but it is. When knowledge and the dissemination of that knowledge is outlawed we are in deep deep shit. IIRC the Feds have already tried to prosecute people in possession of (and the publisher of) the Anarchist Cookbook. Didn't get very far do to that pesky First Amendment thing. The "demonstrating" think MAY have some ground IF, they used real explosives or actually made real explosives.

*two counts of Carrying - carrying what, and how? Carrying a rifle in accordance with the law is not illegal. Carrying handguns may be illegal depending on how it was done.

*Using and Possessing a Firearm During and in Relation to a Crime of Violence - What crime of violence? I do not see any crimes of violence listed above considering a crime of violence requires something to actually happen, not just be planned.


So far I'm really not seeing ANYTHING that justifies a multi state operation like we saw. I hope they have a lot more than this.

[gorfle]

13. Time will tell.

But frankly, having watched their videos and looked at their web sites, I'm not upset about them being out of circulation. A bunch of religious nuts waiting for the "end times".

[PavePusher]

19. Quite often the end does not justify the means.

If you have to run rough-shod over the Constitution and the Law to end a threat, you are generally no better than the people posing the threat. (That's the impersonal "you" by the way, not meaning your particular self.)

[gorfle]

20. You are correct.

You are correct, but I'm still not sorry to see these folks go. People like them make legitimate firearm ownership that much harder.

[safeinOhio]

24. Tim McViegh sure made it hard to buy

good fertilizer.

[shadowrider]

23. I agree but need more info

I'm curious as to what "proof" they have of killing an LEO OTHER than someone said, or better yet, "someone said someone said" they were going to.

If they were planning this action, and there is definitive proof, of course they should be shut down. But if this is just something manufactured because a bunch of guys crawl through the woods in camo and have a lot of weapons (and I don't know they do), and someone got scared, then this action is uncalled for.

Again, not enough info for me to make up my mind.

[Hoopla Phil]

25. I'm very much with you on this. I'd like to know

what is in the sealed warrants too. I figure they had a person inside. Weather an informant or an undercover but I bet they had someone. Then it needs to be determined what kind, and how much that person inside had on this planned action. There is a line that once crossed the suspects are considered intrapped and that's a big no no. OR, the person inside could have only observed and reported. We'll have to wait until trial. (hopefully it will be public)

[Glassunion]

27. Don't forget..

They solicited someone to manufacture IEDs according to the indictment. That person could have also been an informant.

My best guess is that they had someone on the inside.

[Glassunion]

15. I read the indictment...

Count One.. *Seditious Conspiracy - In the indictment, they elude to there being specific targets, however they are not defined in the indictment. According to the indictment, they specifically were "planning" to kill an LEO, then at the funeral for the LEO attack either the procession or the funeral service. They also solicited the help of another individual they believed could manufacture IEDs. Since they trained and planned for this while carrying firearms the received 2 counts of carrying below. Title 18 Section 2384

Count Two.. *Attempt to Use Weapons of Mass Destruction - They specifically mention bombs and explosive mines in the indictment. Too much to retype.

Count Three.. *Teaching/Demonstrating Use of Explosive Materials - While in itself is not illegal. I can remember in science class being taught about 2 materials, when mixed in the proper proportions then being introduced to a high temperature, being able to burn slowly through metal. This act was not illegal, however according to Title 18 Section 842(p)(2) teaching this: "with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence" is a crime.

Count Four.. *Two counts of Carrying - see count one and two.

Count Five... *Using and Possessing a Firearm During and in Relation to a Crime of Violence - Additional laws that they violated, Relates to the exact same laws that they broke for count 4. They violated Title 18 Section 924(c)(1)

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/03/29/stone.pdf (the indictment)

[Hoopla Phil]

16. I'm very curious and concerned about the WMD charge. Are there two

different definitions of WMDs; One for military and another for civilians? They are charging that improvised munitions are WMDs yet we've been told that Saddam Husein did not have WMDs defined as chemical, biological, or nuclear. I could see the charges being valid if they were trying to make some kind of chemical weapon but not improvised munitions. If these charges stick on improvised munitions then "W" was correct and found massive amounts of WMDs in Iraq

[Glassunion]

17. Well duh!

:sarcasm:

If you don't find what you are looking for, then why not change the rules to include what you did find?

Sort of like when we were kids and playing hide-and-go-seek. When you were at the point of being tagged you suddenly declare that the tree you are standing next to is safe, therefore you cannot be tagged out if you are touching it.

[Hoopla Phil]

18. Got me, I really did LOL at that.

[shadowrider]

22. Huh?

When you were at the point of being tagged you suddenly declare that the tree you are standing next to is safe, therefore you cannot be tagged out if you are touching it.

I NEVER did that :eyes:

[Glassunion]

26. Well sir, then you could never qualify to be a politician.

Sorry. If you cannot change the rules of the game when you are fully committed to a failing maneuver, in order to protect yourself or position then you do not have what it takes to be a politician.

Especially for the state of NJ.

Dude... Politics 101.

How to handle failure...

Step 1. Change the rules so it is no longer a failure
Child: Make the tree suddenly safe
Politician: Redefine WMDs

If that fails...

Step 2. Plausible deny-ability.
Child: I thought the tree was safe? I don't recall the tree not being safe.
Politician: I thought these were all WMDs. What does yellow cake have to do with WMDs? I'm not hungry.

If that fails...

Step 3. Shift the blame to your opponent. Works especially well if you accuse them of step 1.
Child: Not one of you told me that the tree was not safe. You guys are not playing fair. You can't change the rules 1/2 way into the game
Politician: You keep changing the subject, what do WMDs have to do with Iraqi Freedom!?

If that fails...

Step 4. Bail out. Good way of saving face and getting re-elected.
Child: I'm not playing your game, tag me all you want but I never said that I wanted to play. I'll join in on the next round.
Politician: I was not in on that committee, I believe those things were agreed on before I came on board. This would never happen on my watch.

If that fails...

Step 5. Apologize by blaming something else not involved with the situation and go home.
Child: I'm sorry, but the street lights are coming on, and I don't want to get yelled at by my Mom
Politician: I was overwhelmed by my sexual addictions that I have been struggling with. I have checked into rehab and with the support of my wife, family and supporters we can get through this together. In the mean time, I would like to appoint someone that none of you voted for to keep my bullshit agenda on the table.

Just sayin'

[shadowrider]

28. Politics 101

Those are reasons I agree with you. I could never be a politician.

[pipoman]

21. I think the over the top

response to these guys has everything to do with the allegation of targeting police...there have been much more threatening language and acts from, say, the pro-life fundies but no multi-state strike force, of coarse they weren't targeting police, only doctors.

[Callisto32]

29. If you want to get bureaucrats off their butts, threaten bureaucrats.

The rest of us can deal with it ourselves. Except the bureaucrats don't want us to be able to do that either.....hmmm.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.