That's all state law, and other states deal with the situation differently. I think it is right to argue the morality of resistance from a legal standpoint, just to get the religious naysayers off your back over resisting hostile action on the part of the government, but in the larger picture, this is also a matter about possession of the nation.
The right to possession on a nation, any nation, lies in its constitutional makeup. That is what defines whether someone is having a revolution or a counter revolution, or a restorative revolution to an earlier form of government (like re-establishing a monarchy).
I am not sure if acts of resistance would be considered warfare or vigilantism on this, or just plain Chuck Norris style "you fucked with freedom so now I will fuck you up" type stuff.
What I have discussed lately with another patriot on this board is that "indefinite preventive detention" has been practiced at the state level and to a lesser degree at the federal level as a matter of "mental health policy" for a very long time, just the process sidestepped the military and tended to use local resources. It also had a history or faliure when used against organizations since the whole nature of it is geared toward "dangerous individuals". From what I understand, pre-existing mental health preventive detention laws traditionally don't functionally work as well against organizations but historically, it has been used against cults.
One historic note, the case of Charles Manson, if I remember correctly, his originator crimes of conviction called for something shorter than the life sentence that he got, and at every parole hearing, his is rejected usually on the grounds that his further detention prevents further crimes. Some legal rights "purists" would argue for the release of Charles Manson, but most people don't go that far and are happy to see him still locked up and batshit crazy from a combination of his own pre-existing insanity and numerous psych meds that he is fed, by force if he is uncooperative.
The same levels of common sense need to come into play if some of those alleged AL Queda camps turn out to be both real hostile on top of being armed, dangerous, and combining citizen fighters with non-citizen fighters. Current law apparently deals with that to some degree but personally, I am not seeing anything I would write commendations over, sort of like that Muslim guy who joined the Michigan militia, got elected to a position of rank with them, had contact wit the Hutaree militia, and then promptly sicked the feds against the Hutaree...
Yeah, real freedom fighters with that whole scene. Reminds me of the class III crowd and FFL holders here in Oregon who are constantly scouting for names to turn in to their good friends at the BATfag offices.
