Doug: I am loosely referring to habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, the questioning of the lawfulness of the restraint of a person who is imprisoned or detained in another's custody.
Milwaukee faced this in 1967, when Mayor Henry Maier confined all citizens of the City of Milwaukee to their homes, effectively imprisoning them without judiciary involvement. The Wisconsin National Guard was used to enforce the order. With the Katrina hurricane, people were forcibly removed from their homes and their weapons confiscated, without them having done anything to prompt such action. Their ability to go where they pleased (namely, remain in their own home, the right to freedom) and the right to posses material property (namely, their weapons) was removed from them without due process. Martial law, the "absolute rule of the government" invoked by the government and effected by military force without respect to a person's rights, was not invoked by strict definition in either case.
However,
the function of the National Guard is to act as a State police force and military establishment. Since in both cases the National Guard was militarily armed and the orders they carried out were without provocation on the part of the individual citizenry and in clear violation of a citizen's Constitutional Rights (freedom of choice, namely to remain on their own property and retain their own property), it is quite arguable that martial law was indeed declared. The only part that does not meet strict definition is the body that enforced the orders was not strictly defined as a military body, although they are a military body and did act in such capacity at such time.
Furthering the argument is the arming of police officers as if arming military personnel. The same weapons, body armor, helmets, uniform style, and training are employed in both the military and civilian officer duties, albeit to a marginally differing degree. The civilian officers may in many cases be better equipped than their military counterparts, since they have greater access and ability to purchase personal weapons and armaments. (For instance, the standard military issue pistol is 9 mm, where as many police department standards are .40 caliber, and officers are able to purchase .45 caliber primary and .40 caliber backup weapons, in addition to the assault rifles they carry.)
Also furthering the argument is the daily searches and seizures that take place. People on OpenCarry rightfully complain about being detained for peaceably walking down the street while armed, or not being able to lawfully carry a weapon in or near a School Zone, yet at airports people are thoroughly searched without probable cause, and items such as cigarette lighters, nail clippers and files, liquids, etc. are confiscated. Even boarding the cross-lake ferry "requires" photo identification and a physical search of all baggage.
With that said, it is very arguable that police and security officers are being used as a military force to violate the most basic rights of American citizens on a daily basis. In almost every state, transporting a weapon in a vehicle is highly regulated, not for personal or public safety, which would simply require the weapon be made safe (an extreme example might include unloading the chamber but leaving the magazine loaded), but to remove a person's ability of self-defense. There is no more basic right than the right to life, the right to remain alive by being able to defend oneself from attack.
So I submit we are not being slowly coaxed into martial law, that being the rule of government without respect to a person's rights and enforced by a branch of the government, but we are currently in a state of martial law.
