The issue here is that this proposed militia would not be under the authority of both the state and federal government.

To CSGV, a state militia has no legitimacy unless it is under federal control.  No, really–I’m not making that up.  In fact, we talked about this before, when Montana was considering forming a militia:

A state-sanctioned group of volunteers equipped and trained to help during emergencies–sounds benign enough, doesn’t it?  Well, not to the CSGV.  From the latest entry on their “Insurrectionist Timeline” (which begins with the Supreme Court’s Heller ruling):

“February 4, 2011—Montana Rep. Wendy Warburton (R-Havre) introduces legislation to allow state residents to organize armed units called ‘home guards‘ that would answer to the governor and sheriffs during emergenices. These paramilitary groups would be formed into ‘infantry companies‘ with their own uniforms, flags, and identities, and would not be subject to federal oversight or control.”

My observation then:

The CSGV is perhaps the only U.S. “gun control” group to openly call for a government monopoly on force.  Now, though, it seems as if even that’s not enough.  Not only do they want a government monopoly on force, but it must be a federal government monopoly.

In fairness, the lack of federal control is not CSGV’s only expressed objection, although this second concern adds very little in the way of logic to the conversation:

Additionally, it very well might be populated by individuals who hate the government.

Evidence presented for the likelihood of “hatred of our government” among the volunteers?  Exactly zero, but that did not stop them from warning of that “threat” with even more certainty in their Twitter feed.  Still, the lack of federal control seems to be CSGV’s largest objection.  As James Madison, author of the Second Amendment, wrote in Federalist 46, one primary purpose of the state militia is to act as a brake on federal overreach:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.

. . .

To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.

Coincidentally (or not?), just today Mike Vanderboegh posted a very useful primer on the basics of the history and principles upon which militias are based, including their role in protecting state sovereignty.

It’s funny.  Groups like CSGV never tire of arguing that (the Supreme Court’s Heller ruling to the contrary notwithstanding) that the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms applies only to a government-sanctioned militia.  Now, though, when there is talk of the formation of new state militias, they scream about the “insurrectionist” threat posed by that.

About the Author

A former paratrooper, Kurt Hofmann was paralyzed in a car accident in 2002. The helplessness inherent to confinement to a wheelchair prompted him to explore armed self-defense, only to discover that Illinois denies that right, inspiring him to become active in gun rights advocacy. He writes a gun rights blog, called Armed and Safe.