So this gem appeared in the local paper from an allegedly non-partisan but actually far left organization in Nevada: https://www.rgj.com/story/opinion/vo...on/5993946002/ . Essentially the writer calls on the government to prosecute those who are members of any sort of militia other than the state National Guard, and cites several statutes that prohibit such militias.
Now, there are a lot of rabbit holes to go down in this piece, and some blatantly absurd leaps of logic. For example their assertion that the State Constitution specifically prohibits militias is based on this section:
Sec. 11. Right to keep and bear arms; civil power supreme.
1. Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.
2. The military shall be subordinate to the civil power; No standing army shall be maintained by this State in time of peace, and in time of War, no appropriation for a standing army shall be for a longer time than two years.
They twist this to be a ban on militias.
They say that NRS 197.120 provides that anyone who exercises the duties of a “public officer ... without having qualified therefor ... shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.” This statute disqualifies the claims by illegal militias to be legally putting themselves forward with weapons to defend property which is not their own. Contrary to the claims of many armed militias, nothing in the law allows them to usurp that function of law enforcement officers." Taking this to it's ultimate conclusion would make any assistance to protect a friend or family member by a non-LE officer illegal, so...
They rely quite a bit on this from Georgetown Law: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...iMM5xP8eKMIrcp . This document tells how to recognize a militia, how to report their activity, and includes "These groups often engage in behaviors that show their intent to act as a private militia, such as wearing military-style uniforms, tactical gear, or identifying insignia; wielding firearms or other weapons; and operating within a coordinated command structure. Other factors—such as statements by leaders or members’ efforts to direct the actions of others—also may suggest that a group is acting as a private militia. Groups of armed individuals may engage in unauthorized militia activity even if they do not consider themselves to be “members” of a paramilitary organization."
Some of the statutes mentioned do ban any militia not specifically authorized by the Governor. This got me to wondering: do other states have similar statutes and if so, how widespread are they?