School me on the "Oath Keepers"

[Kick]

I have searched and saw that were older threads but, none of them covered my specific questions.

They have been popping up in different forms of the media and being portrayed in very different lights. Some forms of media portray them to be the greatest thing since canned beer. Other forms portray them to be an extremist terrorist group. I have done my own research and have a few unanswered questions that I hope some of you can answer.

Below is taken from their website:
Oath Keepers » Oath Keepers – Guardians of the Republic

OATH KEEPERS: ORDERS WE WILL NOT OBEY

Click here to read full length version.

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people

3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.​

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
Does this include a convicted felon or someone who has just committed a crime?

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
Does this include a "probable cause" search or if evidence of a crime is in plain sight?

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
Does this include a jail cell? (Provided there is probable cause to believe that the individual(s) in question have committed a crime)

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
Does this include evidence of a crime and / or unlawfully obtained property?


I would also like to know if there is a plan of action for the group or if it exists simply to remind America's past and present military and police that they took an oath to uphold the Constitution?


​

 

[pudly]

You are treating it as if it is a legal contract and looking for loopholes. It really doesn't take that level of analysis to understand the meaning.

Also- I'm still trying to figure out which of those lines would make an Oath Keeper a terrorist...

 

[96firephoenix]

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
Does this include a convicted felon or someone who has just committed a crime?

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
Does this include a "probable cause" search or if evidence of a crime is in plain sight?

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
Does this include a jail cell? (Provided there is probable cause to believe that the individual(s) in question have committed a crime)

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
Does this include evidence of a crime and / or unlawfully obtained property?

1. They are speaking generally of taking the arms of the general populace, as was one of the Wehrmacht's first steps in Nazi Germany. Removal of firearms from those who would otherwise not be lawfully allowed to have them is not an unlawful order.

2. "probable cause" and "clear evidence" are not instances where a warrant would be needed.

7. No, it does not. Unless your jail cells are like the Concentration Camps in Europe or Internment Camps in the US during WW2, where people were imprisoned without due process or evidence of a crime.

9. Items that are seized as evidence are (usually) lawfully seized. They are referring to the seizure of goods (jewelry, shoes, gold teeth, etc.) by the SS and Wehrmacht from the Jews, gypsies and others during the Holocaust.

 

[Kick]

You are treating it as if it is a legal contract and looking for loopholes. It really doesn't take that level of analysis to understand the meaning.

I'm not looking for loopholes. I'm just attempting to fully understand the oath. From what I have researched, it definitely does not look like they are terrorists to me but, before I would consider taking any oath, I would like to fully understand it.

Is there any point in taking an oath that you do not fully understand? How can one uphold an oath that they do not fully understand?

 

[Kick]

1. They are speaking generally of taking the arms of the general populace, as was one of the Wehrmacht's first steps in Nazi Germany. Removal of firearms from those who would otherwise not be lawfully allowed to have them is not an unlawful order.

2. "probable cause" and "clear evidence" are not instances where a warrant would be needed.

7. No, it does not. Unless your jail cells are like the Concentration Camps in Europe or Internment Camps in the US during WW2, where people were imprisoned without due process or evidence of a crime.

9. Items that are seized as evidence are (usually) lawfully seized. They are referring to the seizure of goods (jewelry, shoes, gold teeth, etc.) by the SS and Wehrmacht from the Jews, gypsies and others during the Holocaust.

Thank you sir, I was pretty sure that was what they mean but, I wanted to be sure. Sometimes when your read something, it is very easy to assert the meaning "you want things to have" as the meaning they actually have.

EDIT: REP FOR THAT!

 

[jsharmon7]

Another question about this group: what is the point? If an officer/soldier/etc. is willing to look up this group and join, doesn't that say a lot about their views? Do I really need to join a group and take this oath to uphold the laws and Constitution of the United States? For lack of a better comparison, isn't this like having a special group to join promising not to beat children? These are things that any good officer is going to support anyway without becoming part of this group.

 

[Kick]

You are treating it as if it is a legal contract and looking for loopholes. It really doesn't take that level of analysis to understand the meaning.

Also- I'm still trying to figure out which of those lines would make an Oath Keeper a terrorist...

To address your edit. I still am too.... Here is a link to the article I was referring to.

The Oath-Keepers: Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists Waiting to Happen « SpeakEasy​

 

[Benny]

Another question about this group: what is the point? If an officer/soldier/etc. is willing to look up this group and join, doesn't that say a lot about their views? Do I really need to join a group and take this oath to uphold the laws and Constitution of the United States? For lack of a better comparison, isn't this like having a special group to join promising not to beat children? These are things that any good officer is going to support anyway without becoming part of this group.

Good point, but if an already good officer wants to take an Oath, who's to say they shouldn't?

I agree that it doesn't matter though...Good officers are going to be good regardless of an oath just like bad officers are going to be bad regardless of the oath or not.

 

[mrjarrell]

To address your edit. I still am too.... Here is a link to the article I was referring to.

The Oath-Keepers: Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists Waiting to Happen « SpeakEasy​

Did you take into account the source of the article, and where they might have gotten their "information"? The author of that article is parroting the spiel of the Southern poverty law center, a well known leftist organisation with a known agenda.

 

[jsharmon7]

Good point, but if an already good officer wants to take an Oath, who's to say they shouldn't?

I agree that it doesn't matter though...Good officers are going to be good regardless of an oath just like bad officers are going to be bad regardless of the oath or not.

Not me. If it helps an officer/soldier/etc. to remind himself/herself of what they swore to uphold, then I have no problem with it. I guess I just didn't understand the need. As you said, the good ones will be good ones and the bad ones will be bad.

 

[Kick]

Did you take into account the source of the article, and where they might have gotten their "information"? The author of that article is parroting the spiel of the Southern poverty law center, a well known leftist organisation with a known agenda.

Oh yeah. That's the problem with most forms of media. They will put whatever slant the owner of their parent company believes give them the desired political boost. That's why I try to get what I can from as many sources I can. Like most other discrepancies in life, there are two opposing sides with very different viewpoints. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

That's why when I was researched as much as I possibly could and learned what I could from their own website, I chose to ask the remainder of my questions here. I have no doubt that INGO has several members that are Oath Keepers.

There is no better source of information than the horse's mouth

 

[jeremy]

See me personally I find the very Idea of the need to take a second Oath embarrassing and Dishonorable...

My Oath I took over 20 years ago is still binding as far as I am concerned...

 

[Kutnupe14]

I certainly no fan of the Oath Keepers, but I will throw them a bone. May think that the the cultures within certain organizations (ie military, police, federal law enforcement agencies) is one of mindless automatons who a fully willing to do the bidding of Ming the Merciless. By creating a group like the Oath Keepers, those members of those organization can look to others that are of a similar mindset; when often it appears to them, that they are alone in their beliefs.

 

[Stschil]

I don't know a lot about the group, but I do like the idea of being reminded from time to time. Many of us do this ourselves in our own way.

For instance, I display the American Flag outside my home. It serves to me as a constant reminder of the principles of freedom, My Oath of Enlistment, and the sacrifices made by those who came before me and those who are now serving.

"This We'll Defend" the Army mott, is also a reminder to me. I would hazard that Semper Fi is the same for Marines. I admit my ignorance when I say I do not know the motto's of the Air Force or the Coast Guard, but I would assume theirs ring true to the members of those branches as well.

The local radio station down here in Martintuckey plays the Star Spangled Banner every day at noon. I love it. If I'm working and listening at that time, I always pause, turn toward my flag and offer my respect.

I also think that it could be a good way to educate some of the younger, more 'present day indoctrinated', service members and LE as to the reasons the Constitution was written and that many of the policies of today are in direct conflict to the very spirit of Liberty and Freedom that this country was founded upon. Unfortunately, our present day education system pretty well glosses over the American Revolution and paints it as a quaint little story of the past, with things like Wadsworth's poem and cute little 3rd grade skits of kids throwing kegs of tea leaves over the gunwalls of a cardboard boat.

 

[jtb]

See me personally I find the very Idea of the need to take a second Oath embarrassing and Dishonorable...

My Oath I took over 20 years ago is still binding as far as I am concerned...

THIS !!! As far as I'm concerned the blank check I wrote over thirty years ago is still good.

jim

 

[E5RANGER375]

I have searched and saw that were older threads but, none of them covered my specific questions.

They have been popping up in different forms of the media and being portrayed in very different lights. Some forms of media portray them to be the greatest thing since canned beer. Other forms portray them to be an extremist terrorist group. I have done my own research and have a few unanswered questions that I hope some of you can answer.

Below is taken from their website:
Oath Keepers » Oath Keepers – Guardians of the Republic

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
Does this include a convicted felon or someone who has just committed a crime?

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
Does this include a "probable cause" search or if evidence of a crime is in plain sight?

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
Does this include a jail cell? (Provided there is probable cause to believe that the individual(s) in question have committed a crime)

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
Does this include evidence of a crime and / or unlawfully obtained property?


I would also like to know if there is a plan of action for the group or if it exists simply to remind America's past and present military and police that they took an oath to uphold the Constitution?


​

1. as it stands now no. but what if a general firearms ban is passed and it becomes illegal? then you and me would be criminals. at that point NO, an OATH KEEPER would not disarm that person based on an unconstitutional law. (yes there are already unconstitutional laws, and thats why we need to stand up now and get them changed)

2. Obviously thats a NO.

7. again, obviously no.

9. as of now no. but in a time of crisis or if marshal law is enacted then an order could be issued to confiscate all food and resources from private individuals. NO OATH KEEPER WOULD OBEY THOSE ORDERS!

as far as a plan of action. well im not gonna talk about my opinion here.

but if anyone wants to call OATH KEEPERS a terrorist group because they uphold the laws and principles this country was founded on and are still law, then they are calling the wrong people terrorist.

The U.S. Govt is the largest terrorist group in the world and they constantly break our laws with no consequences. whos the bigger threat to our liberty? THANK YOU!

 

[E5RANGER375]

See me personally I find the very Idea of the need to take a second Oath embarrassing and Dishonorable...

My Oath I took over 20 years ago is still binding as far as I am concerned...

THIS !!! As far as I'm concerned the blank check I wrote over thirty years ago is still good.

jim

the first Oath is all you need to have taken. no second oath is needed to be an oath keeper. i see that more as theatrics. its the basic idea to uphold your original oath thats important. If I felt I was dishonoring my oath I took, then I would not have joined. some people need to be reminded, some dont. the main idea is to rally together and in numbers be stronger against tyranny.

 

[Kick]

1. as it stands now no. but what if a general firearms ban is passed and it becomes illegal? then you and me would be criminals. at that point NO, an OATH KEEPER would not disarm that person based on an unconstitutional law. (yes there are already unconstitutional laws, and thats why we need to stand up now and get them changed)

2. Obviously thats a NO.

7. again, obviously no.

9. as of now no. but in a time of crisis or if marshal law is enacted then an order could be issued to confiscate all food and resources from private individuals. NO OATH KEEPER WOULD OBEY THOSE ORDERS!

as far as a plan of action. well im not gonna talk about my opinion here.

but if anyone wants to call OATH KEEPERS a terrorist group because they uphold the laws and principles this country was founded on and are still law, then they are calling the wrong people terrorist.

The U.S. Govt is the largest terrorist group in the world and they constantly break our laws with no consequences. whos the bigger threat to our liberty? THANK YOU!

Thanks for the info. If you don't mind, can you PM me about the bold section?

 

[E5RANGER375]

Thanks for the info. If you don't mind, can you PM me about the bold section?

with all due respect and nothing against you. no.

if you read the declaration of independence you will be able to figure out what I PERSONALY (not as a rep for OATH KEEPERS) thinks needs to happen. but in respect to INGO rules thats all I can say.

 

[Stschil]

Here's a link to an interview with Stewart Rhodes, by Radley Balko. This might help you out a bit.

An Interview With Stewart Rhodes - Reason Magazine

Good read, thanks for the link