In the U.S., the term has legal meaning:

of their intent....is accurate---his terminology isn't....he -imo/understanding - absolutely should have called them "terrorists" not "militia" if he is accurately (and I believe he is) describing their intent.

He's called them "militants," which is perfectly accurate.

But headline writers don't always get it right.

We refer to the organizations occupying parts of Syria as "militias."

Which are they--part of the National Guard or unorganized. Because by using the word "militia" we only mean males 17 years of age or older, under 45, citizens of the US.


Russia has its own militia. The word "militia," though, is more or less the national equivalent of the police.


I like the following definitions for the common English word (not part of legal jargon):
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

Covers all the usual meanings. Short and functional.

Those places don't adhere to US Constitutional definitions or restrictions. Burns, Oregon, unless a secret secession has taken place, is subject to US law and the Constitution along with all its "legal jargon".

The Oregonian even explained why. Other news outlets in oregon are following suit.

One difference being that a militia is pretty much uniformly armed, while militants don't need to ever carry a firearm or engage in violence.