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.

Law enforcement auxiliaries in Michigan

Here is another item that relates to the S2A project. This item from the Detroit Free Press reports that there are over 3000 civilians supplementing law enforcement officers in the state of Michigan, but that the state lacks standards for training and oversight.

Expanded civilian participation in law enforcement is an important part of the S2A project, but it must be regulated properly if it is to have the intended effects.

State Defense Forces

In my post on 16 May 2018, I introduced an idea to link gun ownership to security-related service. I will refer to this as the S2A project henceforth.

State Defense Forces (SDFs) could play an important role in this project. Currently 22 states and Puerto Rico have them. SDFs are like the National Guard, but unpaid, and their members are not required to leave their home state. Currently, their membership is largely former members of the regular military, but should the S2A project be implemented, their ranks might expand. I also suspect that there may be people who are willing to serve their country in a militia capacity but who also believe that military force should be a last resort and do not want to subject themselves to being possibly caught up in misguided conflicts on foreign soil. SDFs might be attractive to them.

Here is a short overview of SDFs' history and operations by James Jay Carrafano.

Bring back the draft? Bad idea

In my previous post I proposed voluntary security-related service as a prerequisite to owning guns. One competing approach that I will briefly address would be mandatory service (actually, I will let others address it). I don't think there is much support for bringing back the draft, but former congressman Charles Rangel called for it while he was in office, and others have called for a broader range of compulsory service, so I think it merits a look.

Howard Sapolsky of MIT offers arguments against reinstating the draft in his article, "What Americans Don't Understand About Their Own Military". This article is also useful for the figures on American rates of participation in the military.

Yet another approach would be mandatory military training. Harry S. Truman was a proponent of universal military training (UMT) throughout his political career, including this address to a joint session of Congress on Oct. 23, 1945. Truman draws a distinction between UMT and a draft, and I think the distinction is a fair one. Should my proposed service requirement for gun ownership prove unfeasible, my fallback position would be to require some sort of training such as Truman suggests as a prerequisite for gun ownership.

Truman called for a year of training followed by 6 years of eligibility for call-up. I am not opposed to Truman's plan in principle, but it does not seem to be politically viable. A less demanding proposal might be something like this:

• Two 6-to-8 week training camps would take place during successive summers. 
• Most trainees would begin at age 17 or 18. 
• The first session would be mandatory and trainees would earn credit toward a secondary or post-secondary academic program.
• The second session would be voluntary and trainees would earn a small stipend.
• Trainees who complete both sessions would be eligible to buy firearms.

There would be no further service requirement or eligibility for call-up for those who complete both training sessions under this proposal. The training sessions would cover firearm safety, physical fitness, teamwork, and emergency preparedness, including basic first aid training. Certain civics lessons would be reviewed, including the roles of the security services in contemporary society. Trainees would learn about their options for service and would have opportunities to meet with representatives of various services. Such camps would draw trainees from multiple districts, exposing trainees to a wider peer group. It would be a chance for intervention should trainees have unaddressed issues such as obesity, illiteracy, social isolation, or mental illness (the camps would have to be run by competent and caring staff who could respond appropriately to such issues). Trainees who choose not to complete the second session could become eligible to buy guns by completing some form of service per my previous proposal.

Service and the Second Amendment (1)

(1) The proposal

The United States of America continues to be plagued by the highest levels of gun violence in the developed world. At the same time, Americans are increasingly disconnected from the people who protect them, both at home and abroad. It is possible to address both of these problems with a single policy proposal: Ownership of firearms should be limited to citizens who have served in the security services. (N.B.: This would only apply to guns obtained after this proposal is implemented; there would be no confiscation of guns obtained legally before implementation.)

For the purposes of this proposal, let the security services be defined as all agencies at any level of government which serve to protect the general population from harm to their persons or property, whether those threats are human-caused or not, and whether those threats originate from within the community or outside it. In other words, the security services protect the population from all threats, man-made or natural, internal or external. Specifically, the security services comprise agencies in the following categories:

• armed forces
• law enforcement
• emergency response (firefighters, paramedics, etc.)
• corrections
• intelligence
• diplomacy 

The security services include reserve, auxiliary, and volunteer components where applicable.

The primary reason for this proposal is to reduce gun violence. Gun violence could be curbed if gun ownership were limited to those who have served in defense of the nation or their communities and proven their competence and trustworthiness.

The second reason has to do with fairness. Currently, the great majority of citizens do not directly contribute to their collective security in any way. Their participation is at best indirect, by way of paying taxes to support the efforts of the small percentage of citizens who do. The risks associated with the security services fall disproportionately on that small percentage. The burden should be more widely shared and better understood.

The third reason concerns citizenship. This reason is the most abstract, but in the long run may be the most important. Broader participation in the security services might help to reverse the growing polarization and fragmentation of American society and restore a shared understanding of citizenship. A renewed sense of citizenship might mitigate the alienation felt by some people, especially young men.

I will expand on these reasons and answer objections to the proposal in future posts, but first the key terms of this proposal need to be explained.

The proposal, restated, is that all citizens should be offered opportunities to serve in the security services; service should not be mandatory, but those who refuse to serve should not be allowed to own firearms.

• All citizens means every US citizen between the ages of 17 and 75 who has the mental and physical capacity to serve in some useful way. For example, someone in a wheelchair could serve as a radio dispatcher for an emergency response service.
• Offered opportunities means they should be adequately informed of the ways they can serve and encouraged to do so. They should be given this information as part of their secondary education. Reserve, auxiliary, and volunteer components of the security services should be expanded to accommodate greater numbers, if necessary. It should be possible for most Americans to complete some form of service by their 21st birthday, though many might choose to complete their service later. Employers and educational institutions should be required to reasonably accommodate those who serve while holding down jobs or pursuing degrees.
• Security services has been explained above.
• Service should not be mandatory is self-explanatory.
• Those who refuse to serve should not be allowed to own firearms. Implementation of this provision would include a grandfather clause for current gun owners, and gun owners could still allow family members to use their guns under the owners’ supervision, but those who have not completed their service would not be allowed to purchase or own firearms or keep them in their homes or vehicles (those currently serving would follow appropriate regulations for firearms issued to them). Completion of service would involve a mental health evaluation in all services and a basic firearms safety course for members of services that do not routinely use guns. Those who meet the requirements for gun ownership would receive a license to purchase them.

This is merely a statement of the proposal. I hope in coming months to explain in greater detail the how and why of it and answer objections to it. I hope that readers of this blog will assist me with this project and point out flaws in my reasoning or gaps in my knowledge.

I will, however, address one possible concern right away. This proposal is clearly consistent with the Second Amendment of the Constitution:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I say it is clearly consistent, but of course it is not up to me or any other individual citizen to decide what the Constitution allows. That authority belongs to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to bear arms is an individual right, not a collective right, but it has also ruled that reasonable regulation is allowed (District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008). Could "reasonable regulation" include positive requirements, i.e., requiring that certain conditions be met in order to purchase guns, as opposed to merely requiring the absence of evidence of criminality or mental instability? To my knowledge, the court has not ruled this out. Given the number of gun deaths in this country, positive requirements are reasonable.

This proposal would be a step toward restoring the original intent of the amendment, within the bounds set by the currently prevailing interpretation. The Framers did not include this amendment in order to protect the right to use guns for hunting or to collect guns as a hobby. The right is instrumental to the larger goal of defending a free state. We do not need every able-bodied adult to serve in the National Guard, but those who are unwilling to shoulder any responsibility in order to maintain our security should not be trusted with guns.

Copyright (c) 2018 by M.D. Robertson. The author grants permission to reproduce, republish, or distribute this content with attribution for non-commercial purposes.

Minuteman photo credit: Dave Pape [Public domain], from Wikimedia Commons