What is and is not a militia

A few years ago, I started working on the S2A project, described in "Service and the Second Amendment" and subsequent entries to this blog. The core idea was that gun ownership should be limited to those who have served to protect the nation in some relevant way (armed forces, law enforcement, emergency response, intelligence, corrections, or diplomacy, including reserves, auxiliaries, and unpaid volunteer services). I hoped this might be a way to reduce gun violence in the US while increasing service participation and inculcating a deeper understanding of citizenship.

As I delved into the vast literature on gun rights and gun control, though, I became pessimistic about the effectiveness of my proposal to curb gun violence. I began to suspect that limiting gun ownership would not be enough without also addressing the manufacture and sale of guns. I also saw that those who have served in the specified ways are not necessarily less likely to misuse guns. So I put the S2A project on the back burner.

Recent events and developments have caused me to take another look at the S2A project, not so much for the gun violence angle, as for the other motivations related to service and citizenship. In particular, the growth of so-called "militias" and their involvement in threats to our republican institutions is deeply troubling. 

The media should stop calling these groups militias. It would be more accurate to call them private paramilitary bands. The writings of the Framers of our Constitution make it clear that when they talk about a "well-regulated militia" in the Second Amendment, they are talking about forces under the control of state governments.

For example, here is Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers #29.

And on the Anti-Federalist side, here is Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer #18

Both of these documents deal with the relationship between the national and state governments with respect to the military, and were written at a time when people were very concerned about the possible dangers of a permanent national standing army. Both construe "militia" as forces organized and trained under the authority of the state governments, under the command of officers appointed by the state governments, not self-appointed bands of private citizens.

(According to 10 U.S. Code § 246, all male citizens between the ages of 17 and 45 who are not in the National Guard or Naval Militia are part of the "unorganized militia". But joining a private paramilitary band doesn't affect that classification.)

The groups associated with the so-called "militia movement" of recent decades are not the genuine “well-regulated militia” of the 2nd Amendment. At best, they are hobbyists and cosplayers. At worst, they are domestic terrorists. So far, this movement has given us Timothy McVeigh (the Oklahoma City bomber), the armed occupation of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and the recent plot to kidnap Governor Whitmer, not to mention their participation in the insurrection of 6 January. "By their fruits ye shall know them."

Then there are the Boogaloo Bois, who demonstrated last year at Michigan's Capitol building  . This is a group that is actively preparing to fight a second civil war. The Civil War killed over 620,000 Americans out of a population 31,443,321 (1860 census). Anyone who considers another civil war a live option is either a traitor, a psychopath, a dupe of foreign provocateurs, or is cognitively impaired.

Private paramilitary bands and armed hate groups do not deserve to be called militia. Those who are seriously interested in bearing arms in an organized militia but do not want to join the National Guard or law enforcement have another option. In addition to the National Guard, some states have official volunteer state defense forces. They are unpaid (they may be paid when activated), are not deployed outside the state, and cannot be federalized in the way that National Guard units can be.

Michigan's Volunteer Defense Force website

MIVDF operates under the authority of the State of Michigan through the Michigan Department of Military and Veteran’s Affairs. The FAQ page on the MIVDF site gives further details about the laws under which MIVDF operates.

I have no connection with the MIVDF. I have no firsthand knowledge of the institutional culture of this or any other state VDF, but would I hope that their members do not support domestic terrorists or insurrectionists. I find it encouraging that the 5th Battalion of MIVDF posted the following message on their Facebook page after the plot to kidnap Gov. Whitmer came to light:

We have decided to write a statement in the hopes of distinguishing ourselves the 5th battalion and other State Defense Force members from the type of groups like the one recently associated with an attempt to bring harm to the Governor of Mich.

Please be aware the Michigan State Defense Force/MIVDF is a state regulated military organization under the command of the Governor of Michigan. As a part of the authorized State Military we are force multipliers charged with assisting civil authorities. We hold no political or religious views, we are not in support of any forms of extremism or discrimination.