Citizen Militias

---

This site has moved to robert.williamsonline.us.

---

There's been a handful of comments on some of my recent posts in reference to citizen militias and gun ownership. I think my replies are better put in posts than scattered in the comments sections. Since each topic is quite long, I'm dealing with citizen militias first and gun ownership in a second post.

First, I will start with a definition of militia. I mean it in a much broader sense than the typical militia today. Those are sort of militias, but not in the sense that I think of. I consider a militia to be an organized group of armed, private citizens acting in accordance with the law, generally under the direction of duly elected or appointed government officials. Self-appointed groups that call themselves militias and choose their own officers (and everyone is an officer in those groups) are certainly subsets of the general citizen militias, but they do not have the legal right to select officers or direct themselves. They must come under legal governmental authority (sherrif, or military officers usually) to have any validity. If they want to train and drill together, then I suppose that's fine.

Also, consider that I am pretty much a Jacksonian. I do not trust those with power. I believe they will abuse that power, unless there is someone or something keeping them in check.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program.

The Legal Basis and Composition of Citizen Militias

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution recognizes the role of citizen militias. Federal law (the Militia Act of 1792, passed just one year after the 2nd Amendment was ratified) recognizes the unorganized militia, which is composed of all able-bodied men between 18 and 45 years old, except for members of the National Guard (which is the organized militia), the standing military, and certain public servants and officials. The Militia Act of 1792 also specifies that the citizens of the militia were to provide themselves with the necessary weapons to serve in the militia.

Why Do We Need Militias?

1. Domestic Tranquility
There are approximately 1,000,000 members of the standing military today, with another million or so in the reserves. That's an impressive military, and we certainly have impressive weaponry.

However, much of that weaponry is useless in many contexts. It's great fighting a conventional war, but not a guerilla war (unless high noncombatant casualties are acceptable). It is unlikely that Apache helicopters would be use to quell a riot or other civil disturbance. We are not going to use weapons of mass destruction on our own citizens, and we wouldn't drop daisy cutters to stop a riot. You need men with guns for that.

Consider what would happen if there were another, even better planned and larger scale terrorist attack on America. Could our conventional forces (military, reserves, police) manage to protect the various power plants, buildings, military bases, public venues (malls, sports events), dams, highways, bridges, hospitals, etc.? Of course not. Now consider the difference if the unorganized citizen militia were properly trained and organized, and could be activated with a couple hours' notice. You'd have more people than you needed to prevent a disaster or respond to one.

Think of any situation except conventional combat that you'd need the National Guard for. Now make it worse. That's when you need a large, well armed citizen militia for domestic purposes. You'll eventually run out of military and law enforcement.

2. Defense Against a Foreign Power
During the Revolutionary War, militias played an important role in slowing down the British Army until the "Regulars" could arrive. Then, the militias still played a role, although it was a bit different. Militias were considered as a legitimate force, although they were recognized to generally be inferior to the regular army due to a lack of training, arms, and discipline.

Today, citizen militias would probably be largely ineffective against an invading army. But they would be very effective against an occupation force. The goal would likely be to harrass, distract, interdict, destroy, assassinate, and generally wreak havoc on your enemy as a means of supporting a more conventional force. You might focus on preventing the enemy from turning your area into a stronghold, so that eventually a more organized and more heavily armed regular army could liberate your area. We have approximately 60-65 million gun owners in this country, which is certainly a formidable opposition, and many (most?) of us could be counted on to do what was necessary when the time came to protect our country. We're Jacksonians, and we're just like that. (Not that people of other political persuasions aren't.)

3. Deterrance Against Tyrrany
Citizen militias also play a role in protecting us from our own government. You can only enforce laws that the public permits you to enforce, which provides an ultimate check in the system. There's no way that citizen militias could overthrow the government, but the fact that we've all got guns will certainly limit the abuses of the government. The government can only enforce laws that the public believes are just (or not too unjust anyway). Our founding fathers did such a great job designing our political system that in general, unjust laws are never passed, vetoed, struck down in court, or not enforced by local police agencies.

Jak and Patrick both correctly point out that there are checks against an unjust use of the military to oppress American citizens. One of these checks is the soldiers themselves. Any severe enough injust or oppression that would justify an armed rebellion would likely also persuade much of our standing conventional military to revolt, just as in the American Civil War. We do not have professional classes of soldiers, generally, and we keep the military subject to the citizens that elect our government. The composition of our military and our federal system of government provides many reassurances that the military won't go completely out of control. A rebellion by private citizens is simply the last of the "checks and balances", the absolute last resort, and would only be invoked when everything else had gone horribly wrong.

Deficiencies in the Militia Today

There are clearly glaring deficiencies in the unorganized militia today that would render us largely ineffective if the need arose.

Jak wrote:

Could a citizen militia of the necessary manpower and firepower have been organized, supplied, and prepared without the expertise and existing resources of the standing militia? Could a citizen militia have quickly developed the practical and effective chain of command that our standing military had available to it?

Clearly, the answer is "no". (His original questions were in the context of foreign wars, which is not the domain of a citizen militia, but they are equally valid criticisms of the militia's effectiveness at home.)

The original Militia Act called for a command structure to be in place, under elected state officials, including officers chosen from the citizen militia. The unorganized militia was actually well organized, and included periodic drills and training. The various units of the unorganized militia were based on geographic locations as directed by the state legislature.

This would be necessary today for the unorganized militia to be effective.

For starters, most people don't even know the unorganized militia is a real, legal entity. And they sure don't know who the membership is, or what purpose it serves.

The unorganized militia ought to be brought more in line with the original Act's requirements. Each state would organize its militia as it saw fit, and provide training for the militia. The militia would only be called up for periodic training and in times of great need. Each militia member would provide his own weapons, in addition (perhaps) to heavier weaponry available to the militia and under the control of the miltia's commanding officer.

It is certainly impractical to regularly train the entire body of male citizens, but I believe that little actual training is required. Instruct the citizens in the command structure, as well as instruction on where to report and how they will be called up. Teach them very basic soldiering skills. Instruct them on their legal responsibilities, including what weapons they are to provide for themselves and their responsibility to achieve a reasonable level of marksmanship. That would suffice for initial training, to be followed perhaps annually (or even less frequently) by drills and review to ensure they retain their training.

There are other potential levels of militiamen, including volunteers who undergo extra training for more advanced roles. The original Militia Act included special training for those who would use the heavy artillery.

The unorganized civilian militia of the United States is a legally valid entity with many legitimate uses. It is largely due to a lack of understanding and oversight that it is not effective and never called up. The militia would never be a substitute for an effective, standing military, but provides an important defensive and deterrent component of our national security against foreign and domestic threats.

Additional Information

I have done a poor job of discussing the militia. Others, who are far more informed and intelligent, have certainly done a better job. I should probably have simply linked to these sites, but I wanted to express my own thoughts as well.

James Whisker maintains a list of several articles and books on militias.

Constitution.org has a lot of information on Constitutional Defense of our nation.

Posted by Robert at September 13, 2002 12:30 PM | TrackBack