Legislating Armed Paramilitary Militias in Montana

A Montana lawmaker is proposing the creation of an "armed paramilitary group" or "Home Guard" to "fill the gap between community service organizations, such as a neighborhood watch program and the Montana national guard, and to provide the state and its local communities with the ability to call upon trained and organized volunteers when necessary resources are otherwise unavailable."  The bill would allow the "home guard" organizations "to be formed in companies each with their own uniforms, flags and identities. Its language also would allow them to form into 'infantry companies.'"  Initially, the bill had called these groups "organized militias" before changing the term to "national guard."

That's right, this person suggests legalizing armed militias of volunteers to help regulate Montana citizens, particularly during emergencies. 

When I think of modern militias, I think of radical, pro-gun extremists who rail against anything having to do with the government and taxes, think the country is a dictatorship, and play soldier in the woods, preparing themselves for the far-fetched scenario of a collapse of our government or equally far-fetched take-over of local homes by a federal government that suddenly converts to communism.  I think of Tim McVeigh and the Nichols brothers in the Michigan Militia and the subsequent bombing in Oklahoma.  I think of Bradley Glover and his militia extremists planning an attack on Fort Hood in 1997.  Some of these extremist militias actively call for armed resistance against our government, including the occasional commenter to this blog.  At mention of official recognition by those in power, I think of truckloads of armed extremists driving through the streets of dusty third-world countries.  Most militia members aren't criminals, but they can at best be described as paranoid, and at worst one step away from domestic terrorists.

All too often I hear pro-gun extremists lament the loss of a formally-recognized militia, just like we had back during the Revolutionary War.  But there's a good reason why we don't have those anymore.  Even during the Revolution, George Washington, though praising the militias in public for the sake of morale, made his true sentiments clear to Congress about the weakness of having state militias:  "To place any dependence upon Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff.  Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestick life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill ... makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows ... [I]f I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole; I should subscribe to the latter."  (source: The Writings of George Washington 110, 112, J. Fitzpatrick, ed., 1931-44).

Nonetheless, state militias were retained, though under Federal control after the Uniform Militia Act of 1792, in order to assuage state governments wary of the abuses of federal armies in Europe for a hundred years.  But by the close of the 18th century they were obsolete.  As described by Robert J. Spitzer in his book, The Politics of Gun Control (esp. pages 27-29), state militias suffered poor organization, training, and funding, little government oversight, and abandonment issues.  Their poor performance almost lost the War of 1812 for us.  They lingered for another century in many states, in various degree of shamble.  Finally, in 1916, Congress passed the National Defense Act creating the National Guard, which would prove to be far better trained, funded, and organized, and which is still used for local and state emergencies.

Back to the bill:  Let's see... "fill the gap between community service organizations ... and the Montana national guard."  Oh, you mean, like local law enforcement?  But unlike our law enforcement professionals, these "infantry companies" of volunteers would not be accountable to the community they monitor, but rather to a company captain, who would report to the governor or sheriff.  It is the company captain, a volunteer, who would recruit volunteers and maintain training.  No room for error or favoritism there!

The Montana house panel "didn't vote on the measure, although some on the committee raised concerns that the armed residents could subvert the chain of command.  The measure drew opposition from the Montana Human Rights Network's Jamee Greer, who said the proposed bill could be abused by anti-government extremists because it didn't provide for enough oversight of the paramilitary groups."  (source)

You don't say!  Little oversight.  Their own identity.  Armed volunteers.  Hmm.  I would be alarmed too.  The last thing I want during an emergency is armed local yokels roaming around thinking they can take the law into their own hands!

Hey, here's a radical idea!  Let's instead fund our law enforcement and National Guard units better, and have trained professionals ready and on-hand when disaster strikes.

If you're in Montana, I highly recommend you urge your state congressman to fight this.  Chalk another one up to the list of absurd pro-gun legislation.


Update (2/9/11): existing laws (mainly against) paramilitary groups:  
http://libertyfight.wordpress.com/2009/07/28/laws_regarding_private_militias/