I write in support Dan McDonald in the matter involving Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection.

ICAPs arguments are threefold: 1) that those in town on June 1 were of a paramilitary group or coordinated groups; 2) that Dan issued an order to those groups that would have replaced police functions, effectively ordering a coup against existing authorities; 3) that Idaho laws prohibiting private paramilitary activity are applicable. I refute each argument and instead offers support for constitutional actions.

On the first, the burden of proof includes showing there was a membership dedicated to armed action. Autonomous citizens who are loosely associated do not constitute a paramilitary or private militia. Sandpoint Police Chief Corey Coon stated rumors of men and women as belonging to a private militia were unfounded. On the second, to my knowledge Dan did not make an express request for militia, instead made a wish for the community to stand up for itself should protests get out of hand. Given weeks of rioting, and looting the day before in Spokane, Dan should be praised for sounding the alarm.

On the third, reading through Idaho and federal laws, the prohibitions therein are against militia efforts that would constitute a usurpation of authority against the will of the people, effectively an unsupported militarized coup. Dan’s actions did nothing of the sort. Nor did the men and women with rifles in Sandpoint or Coeur d’Alene challenge the authority of local law enforcement or intimidate citizens from exercising their constitutional rights. In fact, video evidence shows a commitment to support the right to protest. ICAP’s arguments have no validity concerning the events of June 1.

Moreover, we should think hard about our rights. By ordering the police to stand down against wanton mayhem, the mayors of Portland and Seattle sided with the mob against the rule of law. In those cases, it can be argued that in abandoning their sworn duties, these mayors relinquished their effective authority. If so, it is the right of the People to organize in the way they see fit to reestablish law and order. If the state does not order in the state militia or National guard, it is a private militia operating on Constitutional Principles rather than a mob seeking to overturn those principles who should be supported by the state. Or you can turn in your passport to live in CHAZ/CHOP.

Hopefully, Sandpoint never faces a time when its city leaders willfully abandon the responsibilities for which they were elected and mob rule ensues. But should that happen, I hope the community will stand up for the preservation of all Constitutional rights, including angry and vocal protests, whilst ensuring that people and property are protected, from “looting, property damage or violent acts.” Like Dan McDonald, I would rather see what happened in Coeur d’Alene than what we have been witnessing in Seattle, Portland, or other places where law and order been gutted by feckless mayors, decisions that geld police, and a counterculture that does not respect all lives.

PETER KRIZ

Sandpoint