No, it is not:
LEVYING WAR, crim. law.Of course the above would mean that any police action enforcing contraconstitutional "law" is treason, which is absurd, as such would strip the word 'war' of any usable meaning (but then it's been very watered down with crap like "War on women") — further, in light of the Constitution's definition of 'treason', it makes this definition circular.
The assembling of a body of men for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable object; and all who perform any part however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are leagued in the general conspiracy, are considered as engaged in levying war, within the meaning of the constitution. 4 Cranch R. 473-4; Const. art. 3, s. 3. Vide Treason; Fries' Trial; Pamphl. This is a technical term, borrowed from the English law, and its meaning is the same as it is when used in stat. 25 Ed. III.; 4 Cranch's R. 471; U. S. v. Fries, Pamphl. 167; Hall's Am. Law Jo. 351; Burr's Trial; 1 East, P. C. 62 to 77; Alis. Cr. Law of Scotl. 606; 9 C. & P. 129.
So, even if I grant you the one point there (which I might concede after reviewing all aspects of Levy in Blacks, it is still aiding the enemies of the United States, and gives them aid and comfort.