Long article here. https://www.rawstory.com/oath-keepers-t ... president/Opening arguments begin today in federal court in Washington, DC in the trial of Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and four associates on charges of seditious conspiracy.
Among the hundreds of defendants charged in relation to the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol, the Oath Keepers prosecution is the most significant to date. The far-right militia group founded in 2009 assembled a group largely comprised of military veterans in tactical gear who breached the Capitol in two separate military-style “stacks” and stashed weapons across the Potomac River in Virginia in preparation for a potential escalation of the hours-long assault.
Beyond the question of guilt or innocence for the individual defendants, the trial is likely to raise the curtain on an untested legal question — whether an extremist group like the Oath Keepers acting as an “unorganized militia” can exercise force as the “personal army” for an authoritarian president like Donald Trump who might consider invoking the Insurrection Act as a ploy to cling to power.
“They were hoping to have the militia go in and perform the violent coup to force Trump’s will to steal the election and end our democracy on Jan. 6,” said Kristofer Goldsmith, an Iraq combat veteran who is the CEO of Task Force Butler Institute, a veterans organization fighting extremism. “That was their objective. That’s why they had their quick reaction force with all their weapons in Virginia. They believed Trump was going to deputize them as his personal militia.”
They call themselves a "militia". This is going to possibly bring up Second Amendment questions. Are they an “unorganized militia” or are they a "well regulated Militia" as documented in the Second Amendment. This could bring up the Peoples Right to keep and bear arms question. It relies on the definitions of the 18th century not of the 21st century.