The Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government – Abbreviated Version

The following is a much abbreviated version of “The Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government“. The entire Plan consumes many pages of detail regarding the Plan as well as hundreds of pages of reference materials.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government

Abbreviated Version
(includes only a few portions of the overall plan)


This Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government, as explained in “The Question”, is purely hypothetical.  It is, however, a natural evolution from the “You Have Tread On Me – Petition“, as the Revolutionary War was a natural evolution from the Olive Branch Petition.

In adapting this sequence of events to modern times, it needs to be understood that times have changed and the possibility of a gathering of “revolutionary” delegates in one place would be fatal to the cause.

Understanding this difficulty, the expedient for today is that individuals would sign and submit, to their respective representatives in the federal government, individual petitions as “redress of grievances, as per Article I of the Bill of Rights.

Absent a positive response to the Petition, one could safely conclude that the government had no more intention of addressing the grievances than King George III did.  This, by colonial standards, would put one in a “state of nature” — absent an operating Constitutional government — wherein he, as a free man, has every right to associate with others of similar circumstance.

An earlier article, by the author of this Plan, provides some insight into this aspect of the Founders’ thinking process when they realized that they could no longer live under government that did not recognize their rights (see Sons of Liberty #14).

As you progress through this hypothetical Plan, you will not that there are short sketches (Historical Perspective) that provide a brief example of the historical conditions that can be equated with each part of the Plan.

The Plan, then, is an effort to parallel the activities of the Founders into a theoretical plan that emulates the progression of events, culminating in the creation of the United States of America.

The Plan is made as detailed as expedient for the variety of possible circumstance that might arise.  Plans, however, can never be made so rigid that they will work under all conditions.  Therefore, it is intended to provide sufficient detail so that creative minds could easily refine the Plan into a working model for immediate and local conditions.

Often, elements of the Plan call to mind other works by this author, and, works by others, in which cases, links are provided to those works to provide additional insight which might assist in more detailed planning.

The Plan is provided for your pleasure and education.  What you do with it is up to you, and, what you do not do with it is a point of consideration for your posterity.

G. H.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Question:

A question was raised, a few months ago, in a conversation with a friend.  The question was, “Could a Revolution be conducted in the modern world considering modern technology, extensive government troops, and battle field weapons?”  At first thought, the task seems so ominous, so daunting and against such odds, that it would be impractical, if not impossible.

Upon reflecting on what must have been equally daunting to the Founding Fathers, it is not, as first anticipated, such an ominous task.

The Founding Fathers faced British forces — the best-trained and most successful military in the then world.  Its navy was master of the seas; its land forces had recently defeated the French and had forced colonization around the world.  It controlled the local government, and had enacted laws that gave it nearly arbitrary control over the colonies.

The colonies had few things working for them.  They had a lack of experience, except those who had recently fought alongside the British in the French-Indian Wars; some had learned to defend themselves against hostile Indians, and thus learned fighting tactics used by the Indians.  They had local knowledge of the topography.  And, they had the fortitude and persistence that had helped their forefathers, and themselves, overcome the obstacles of taming a land that had been little changed from its natural state.

Against them were: Substantial numbers of highly trained soldiers; Unlimited supplies and resources, although most of them were located across the ocean and had to be transported, this taking months; A multitude of locations, bases, within and around the colonies; Mastery of the waterways; And, many of the military leaders had experience both with fighting Indians and working alongside the colonists.

In those first eventful days of April, May, and June 1775, the colonists learned what their weaknesses were and what some of their strengths were.  They learned that they were not trained, nor were they inclined to fight face-to-face on the battlefield.  They learned that the tactics of the Indians, ambush by surprise and hit and run tactics would damage both morale and manpower of the British.  They learned that living to fight another day was more important than victory in a battle; that skirmishes were the best tactic, unless a major battle had a high degree of probability of being won..  One of the major drawbacks in their efforts was that of selecting officers who were astute enough to challenge the ways of traditional warfare.

But, they did, with their persistence and their faith in God, prevail — not by might, rather by tactics and fortitude.

Just how would they fight, today?  Surely, they would adapt their tactics to the ‘battlefield’ and would realize the political necessity of securing faith and assistance from the non-combatants.  There are many other generalities that can be addressed, but of greater importance will be the actual circumstances of today’s world and the necessity to develop new tactics in order to overcome obstacles that present themselves, as the battle begins.  This is a theoretical answer to that question.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Some Thoughts

This plan, after years of discussion and contemplation, coupled with an understanding of what the Founders did to challenge the authority of the power of government, was developed as a guideline that would answer the question of whether it would be possible, today, to emulate the actions of those Founders to achieve the same end.

The desire to change government back to its Constitutional limitations would best be served if no blood were shed.  The impracticality of achieving that end, along with the knowledge that blood has already been shed, moves us to the second position — that the minimum amount of blood be shed, and, that of if blood is to be shed, that it include an absolute minimum of innocent blood.

There is little doubt that during a conflict, blood will be shed, when necessary, in the course of that conflict.  Knowing that any innocent blood shed is a detriment to the image of those who seek to return to Constitutional government, every effort should be made to “pick the ground” for open conflict, with special consideration to locations that will have the least impact on innocent bystanders.

In the selection of ‘targets’, outside of the normal area of conflict (aggravation), the following should be taken into consideration.

Though accident, error, and, perhaps, judging wrongly, the actions of those who might be targeted, it is far better to isolate those errors to people who, if not guilty, at least are in a position and have acted in such a manner that their guilt is probable.

There is also the moral consideration — that those who are willing to strike, as the Founders did, do so in violation of the laws, as they exist, today.  When they make a decision to “target” someone, or, something, they should consider just how the “target” would be construed by those who will, eventually, make judgment on their actions.  The most important consideration, however, would be the judgment made by God and the person doing the act.  If that act is motivated for purposes of revenge, God will judge, and, the person will have to live with, the consequences.

On the other hand, if the act is one that is surely one of retribution for acts of the target, whether corporate property or an individual life, and has clearly demonstrated by a pattern on the part of the person or entity, then, surely, God will judge as necessary, and, the actor will have a clear mind.

Where possible, all players in the act, and, even more desirable, others who can safely be associated with and brought into, if not the plan, at least the determination of the validity of the ‘target’, the collective judgment, serving as a sort of jury, considering both the guilt and the demonstrable necessity of the action, will provide the best assurance of a desirable final judgment, and a clear conscience for those involved.

If blood is to be shed, every consideration should be made that the blood deserves to be shed.

Some considerations for the evaluation of a ‘target’:

  • Have lives been lost as direct, or indirect, result of the actions of the ‘target’, acting in violation of the Constitution or constitutional laws of the land?
  • Has there been a continual loss of property by people who should have had that property protected, under the Constitution or constitutional laws?
  • If a foreign nation, say, Russia, were to invade the United States, would the target become a collaborator, turning against the United States and the Constitution?

Note: The possibility that if there were sufficient ‘friends” (collaborators) of a foreign power, these ‘friends’ who might encourage participation by that foreign power, is to be considered.  The discouragement of his sort of person (potential collaborators) would be as desirable as the discouragement of all other potential ‘targets’.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

The remainder of the Plan can be found at The Plan for Restoration of Constitutional Government

Or an audio version at Discourse on “The Plan for Restoration of Constitutional Government”


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

20 Responses to “The Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government – Abbreviated Version”

  1. Glenn Risner says:

    Excellent. A lot of good ideas and information.I have always questioned other Patriots- What do we do after we win the revolution? How do we restore the constitution? Many could not answer with clarity or any details. Thanks for the start. I’d like to read the complete version.Keep up the fire!

  2. Crazy Dog says:

    All offices of those oppose any part of the constitution and all liberals

  3. Chuck Reitz says:

    Very well done Gary.
    Quite a few folks figured out awhile back that there was a distinct possibility that a return to the Consstitutional Republic, might include a clash of arms. Bloodshed we do not want but circumstances might require just that.

    As you point out it will start in your and perhaps surrounding counties. The initial action group must be the Committee of Safety followed by the militia controlled by the COS, correct?
    If your local County Sheriff assumes the role of “rebel” but is still the duly elected law enforcment officer in the County, what role, if any, does the COS and/or the militia take against the Sheriff?
    I for one believe any and all fradulent unconstitutional law is not law at all and as should not be acknowledged as such. However, having said that, tradionally we are a law abiding people and acting against a law, even a unconstitutional one gives me cause to hesitate just long enough to get me killed. After all, I’m acting against fellow Americans. If I feel this way, a 23 year service retired, combat trained veteran, what say you about the person with no training thrust, into a situation that might require spilling blood.

    There does exsist a problem.

  4. Hunt says:

    If you have read Are Cops Constitutional? , you might see that the Sheriff is not quite the image that we have had portrayed. If he has resisted, at all, it would be up to the Committee and the intelligence committee (more about that in the final version) to make a determination whether he could take the loyalty oath and serve with us, or not. If his resistance were by force, then you wouldn’t have to worry about any committee review. Every Sheriff’s Department in this country has given in to the federal funding. They have already walked away from the Constitution, and, probably, the state Constitution, as well. If they are willing to join us, though, they will be an asset for our cause.

    Regarding your next question, we have many trained veterans on our side. Some are old, like me, and can better serve in support positions, or other capacities that are found to need such experience. However, with the green guys, nobody ever went into combat the first time with experience behind him. Survival was the best teacher, and it was pass or fail. I would suppose that it will be much like that, this time, as well.

    A draft of the final version is available to any who request it. It is over twice as long as what you have read, and is not yet completed (hence draft). Though it may be far from perfect, and will probably require adjustment, as conditions warrant, it is thoroughly presented to address almost all anticipated situations, at least in a general sense. The Committees and/or the officers on the ground, as always, must make final decisions, on the ground.

    Anybody wishing a copy of the current draft, I will need an email address to send it to. It is in Word .DOC format. Use this link to send email: Gary Hunt

  5. Richard C Wilmot says:

    Please send me a copy of “the Plan”


  6. jac says:

    i’d like to have a copy of your full draft, please. i have a plan, too, and yours seems to fit right in with my plan perfectly! i’d love to see the rest of it. my plan covers the recovery more than the how to get there. i have a plan for that and it is similar to yours, but of course i left out the blood shed as i would like to see that part NOT happen, but unrealistic. i am prepared to fight and die if i have too. when do we start? is my biggest question.

  7. Hunt says:

    Many of the Founders had also hoped for a bloodless return to the rights of Englishmen. It was the reality that this could not be that gave them the courage to take on the task of “by whatever means necessary”.

    To think that, since we are far more subjugated than they were, we can achieve that return to Constitutional Government without bloodshed is ludicrous.

    We have a model — that given to us in our own history — which is the basis for this Plan. As far as other methods, I can simply paraphrase Einstein — Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

  8. Gary Yantz says:

    I am sorry that it took me so long to get through this; I have started to read it a number of times and been interrupted. It is a very good work that you have done and a service to the Republic. Thank you.

    Now how do we get people on board? I know having worked with volunteer groups that it is often not too difficult to get the ball rolling, especially when emotions are high; the difficulty lies in keeping the momentum going.

    I know that this is a grassroots ground up effort, but is there a way that we can organize a national forum (while the opportunity exists) to help local leaders incorporate these ideas? Just a thought. I know that Randy has designed CoS pamphlets for distribution, and that though the CoS and Militia work in concert they are separate entities. Therefore if I distribute pamphlets and get results, how would I best deal with it being militia myself? I guess I am asking the old what comes first the chicken or the egg question in a sense.

    • Hunt says:

      If you would like the more complete version (about twice as long), I can email it to you.
      People will get on board only by reading the Plan, finding those who are close to them and agree with the Plan, and doing something about it. The rest of us will know, when news reports indicate, that the ball is rolling. That is the nature of the Plan, its first two parts are without direct influence by militia or CoS (Committees of Safety).
      There is no reason not to make contact with others, however, your best efforts will be directed at getting a CoS going in your community, and sharing with others, elsewhere, how you got it going. The inter-communictaion between CoS groups will be to share ideas, now, and, later, will be a mean of communication that will help the Plan along.
      If you have a militia, you should exert yourself in finding those who will serve as a CoS. The CoS is of two components. There is an Association, which is all that subscribe to the CoS. Then, there is the CoS exceutive committee, which is eleetced by the by the Associates to administer the CoS. Militia members may also be subscribers to the Association (should be). All of the family membrs of the Assocation members are protected by the CoS, since they are a part of the Association.

  9. RandyMack says:

    I’m glad to see that quite a few people have read not only the abbreviated version, but the full version as well. I would also like to point out that we did 11 90 min audios about “The Plan” that goes into great detail, over every aspect of the “what if”. As Gary pointed out, the most vital element of the “restoration” is going to be the CoS, just as it was in our Founders days. I would recommend really delving into the information posted at as well. I’m also finishing up a group of files that you can burn to cd/dvd, containing audios, and pdf’s, that you can use to hand out, and give people a jump start on the ideas and responsibilities of the Committees of Safety, and the Militia. If you would like that information, you can email me at, or Gary Hunt. There is also a broadcast this Sunday, about the CoS Common Law Court that will be active soon. I would encourage all to listen in at 7pm MST, at

    History has always been made by a small group of people who acted upon a plan.

  10. the pheonix says:

    Hello mr hunt we met at a dennys and I have to say that you are and all that stand with you are the lights of liberty and hope you will be able to send me a copy of the plan aswell.I have been a recipient of your works for sometime now and it brings me great solice in my soul which emboldens my resolve to aid in every way I can in our pursuit of this much needed endevour.I commend you sir for your diligence in this pursuit of returning us to the republic we can be.

  11. Hunt says:

    pheonix, I will need an email address to send you the entire draft of the Plan. If you go to “About Gary Hunt” at the top of the page, you will find an email link at the bottom of that page.

  12. Debby says:

    love it!

  13. Thomas Bunetta says:

    Gary, I’d like a copy of the plan as well.

  14. Marty Farrell says:

    Gary please send me full edition if possible E-Mail enclosed is open for your use.

    Thank You ,

    Marty Farrell

    Annapolis, Maryland

  15. Juanita Padber says:

    I’d sure appreciate a full copy of your plan. This seems very workable. Thank You

  16. Dear Gary,

    I believe there is a better plan. It is true that we had bloodshed when England attacked us but we won. Then we lost it again as I explain in my postings on the website provided. We lost with an unconstitutional acts of Sedition of the Federal government with papers that were done without delegated authority which is how we can get it back again with properly written documents.

    /S/ Steven Pattison

    • Hunt says:

      Steven, though I do not really want to use comments to be advertisement for your pages, I will allow this to remain, though with my comments. You seem to think that only the fiat currency has caused the problems that we have. Unfortunately, 1913, the year of the Federal Reserve Act, had already left us with over forty years of loss of rights. It was just a small part of a larger problem.
      The Plan, however, does provide for that particular problem. There is a link within the Plan to An Economic Solution. You may want to read that and see if it might deal with your concern, and, perhaps, go even further than you have considered, with regard to a positive solution.

  17. […] (A project by the Oathkeepers; more aggressive than simply refusing to follow unlawful orders, but it is no Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government) […]

Leave a Reply