Let me respectfully disagree with the author of this piece.
We do not become an "active war zone" unless there is an insurrection defined by the Insurrection Act of 1807. It will occur when Black Lives Matter and Antifa take up arms and succeed in holding territory. It will occur when city and state police forces engage in firefights when confronted by federal law enforcement authorities enforcing federal law.
We aren't there yet.
I was hoping that unrolled thread would engender discussion, since I am not learned in legal stuff.
:: It will occur when city and state police forces engage in firefights when confronted by federal law enforcement authorities enforcing federal law. ::
What if local LEO is not protecting the people from “pockets” of violence...AKA, sanctuary locations and no-go zones. Would that qualify as “held territory” as a result of insurgent violence?
And, what if the local LEO is aiding and abetting the insurgents, or are found to be the insurgents themselves?
We are technically at war currently and have been since Sept. 14th 2001
Why is "holding territory" part of the requirement? WHere does it say this? And how about "no go" zones?