High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
Jeromiah
irJay"
NjxonJohn
M.
Britl
James
F.
Xeathley
Van Godsey
Diector,
DPs
colonel,
MSHP
Dtector, Mlac
MIAC
Strategic
Ale*
.Ianuary
9,2OO9
ModernComrnittees
of
SafetYVoice of
the
People
or
Militiasin
Dlsguise?
lYany
factors have
contributed to the
mostrecentsurge in
what
is
being
perceived
as
extremeright wing
activjq/,Issues such as the
world-wide
financialmarketmeltdown,the
seemingly
inadequateresponse of the
federal
gov-ernment
to
natural and man-made disasters,the terrorist
threat to our
society, and
thedjsenfranchisement
of
various segments of society
either
alongracial,economic, sexual
or
reiigious lines, have
all
served
to
provideop-portunity
for
response
from
more"activism" orientedpersons
and
organizations
nationwide.This
assessmentwillprovjdeinformation on
just
oneresponsetothese
issues:
The Commfttees of Safety,
Early
History:
Committees of Safety haveexisted since at
Jeast
theyear1642 and
orlgjnated
in Britain,
being created
by
the
BrilishParliamenttoprovjdeforthe"safetyoftheKingdom"duringthePuritanrevolution.
Thesecommittees
had no definedpolicies;rather
they
were tasked
with
providing
inputto the
government
regarding cjvil
unrest.
In
thepre-RevolutionAmerican colonies,one oi theearljest
known
uses
of
the term
committee
of
safety
wasduring theland djsput€
(the
New HampshireGrants)
betvveen
the
colony
of
New
York
and the
people
of
NewHampshire.This dispute
eventually
resultedin sortof a
mini-rebellion
against
New
York
andthe creatjon
of
the
Republic
ofVermont, iater
to
be
admitted
into the
Unionas
the state
of
Vermont. The Committeeof
Safety
at
that time(EthanAllen's)wastasked
with
keepingorder
within those
areasgrantedby
New
Hampshire
but
claimedby New York.
As
ihe
Crown increasedtaxes
within
thecolonies, and
since
the
BritishParliament had
no direct
representatjonfrom thosecolonies,
there
arosea movementto establishCommittees
of
Safety,
Protection,and
Correspondencein order
to
representcolonial interestsin the meetingsof the
local
provincial
governments.
]n
effect,
thesecommittees acted as a
governmentthat
co-existedalongside
the
legitimate
government
of the
Crown
Aithoughthese committeeswould eventuallyform thecoreof the representatives
of
the
thirteen
colonies
that formed the
Second
Continental Congress,
their
jnitialauthoritywas derived
fromthe
provincial
conventionsthat met
infre-quentlyto address colonial concernsbeforethe
Crown.
During
the times
when
theprovincial
conventionswere
;ot
in
session,
the
Committees
of
Safetywere authorizedto
"keepwatch
over the
provinces"
In doing
so,
they
were authorjzed
to
call out
the
provjncial
militia.
Even
though
the
Committeesof Safety
initially
had
very
limitedduties,
as
time
progressedand
the
Britishauthorjtywas for
the mostpaft
ignored,the
Committees
provjdedmore important seryicesincludingjudicialduties
in
trial
proceedings,
draft
authorization
for themilitias,
procuringarmaments,
taxation,
regulation
of intercolony
commerce, issuance
of
currencies and
adjudicatiorof
civil
mat-ters,
Thegovernment
of the
colonies, due
to
Britishatrogance, excessivetaxation, and
out
of
Sheernecessity,becamegovernmentby
commjttees,
Thiscolonialgovernmentwas
truly one
in which
the
people,
through
a lay-eredsystem of committeesat
the
township/county, andprovinciallevels,governed
themselves.Modern Commiftees
of Safety
and
thbrelationshipto
Militias
ThemodernCommittee
of
Safety may beone of twotypes of
organjzationsr
Either
a
groupof
citizens formed
to
act
as
.'one
voice,,
in addressinglocal or stategovernments,
or the committee
may
justbe
a
"front"
organizationfor the formation of a
private,
paramilitary
militia.
Any discussionof
the.legitimacy
of
militia activitymust
beprefacedby severaldefinitions
of
exactly
whal
is a
"lvliljtia"
UNCLASSIFIED//LA\I/ENFORCEMENT
SENSITI\/E
GTI/LES)
lYilitjas
in
the
United Sates(exclusiveof thePre-Revolutionary
organizations)
reached
their first
peak in
the
fvlid
1990's,
At the
time, mjlitia
activisisjustifiedthe existenceof
their
groupsbased on
lang
uage
found
in U
S
codes,
cour-t
decisions, andpresumedhistorical"facts"gathered
from
a
variety
of sources(somereliable, some
oFquestionablereljabiljty.) Thegroupsusedsomelimesconfusingwordstodescrjbetheirgroupssuchasl"Unor-
ganized","ConstitutionaJ",
"Volunteer",
"Citizen'sOrganized';inan
attempt to
legjtimize
their
activities,
and
be
vlewed
as
havinq compiied
with both
federalcode and slate
statute,Forourpurposes,l4ilitiasmaybeciassifiedsimplyas"Organized",or"Unorganized".
USCodeTitlel0,SubA,
Pa(
I,
Seclior 311-313
Orguixut
Mititi[
are the
federally
funded,Army andAir National Guards includingsome Naval
militjas.There
are
also a
few state"DefenseForces" subject
to
cll-out
by
the
stategovernorswho actually
trajn
periodicalJyandare uniformed
bul
not
federally
funded,
lvlissouri
hasno state defense
force
and
relies
on
a federaliy
funded
Na-tional
Guard
for emergencies.Ilnoryanixett
nilitias arc
comprised of
"alJ
able bodiedmen, aged 17
to45,
who are not
members
of
the
organized
lvlilitia".
Several
other exemptions are in
pJace
which exclude
women, the
Vice President, Postal
workers,
vesselcaptains,
etc,
Clearly,
this
description of"unorganizedmilitia"providesapool
of
eligiblemales in
timeof
nationalemergency,Militia organizers have relied on
this
descriptionof
what
constitutes
the
"Unorganjzedlr4ilitia" to
justirythe forma-
tiof
ofprivate paramilitary
groups,
Someacademics insist
that
these
militias
arenot
militias at
all,
and may not
call
themselves
that.
However
for
law enforcementpurposes,
if it
is modeled on
miijtarystructureeither
in asmall or large unit sense, engages inparamiljtary
training,
has
organizationand leadership ofsome
sort,
it
is
a
militia.
Academics who argue
that
privatelyfunded andmaintained
groups
calling themselvesmilitias
are
not,and therefore may
not
legally assume
that
identity must take
note of the
mostrecent Supreme Couftdecision re-gardinginterpretation of
the
Second Amendment,
Note
that
in
the
most
re@nt SecondAmendment
ase
reviewby
the
UnitedStates Supreme
Couft
in
the
Case,
District of Columbja
vs.
Heller, the
cout
provided
an
"originalist"
decision
reaffirming theintent of the
framers
of
the Constitutjon
that the
ianguage
ofthe
SecondAmendment
"awell-regulated militia"
describes
both
the organizedandunorganized
mjljtia
whetherfederally-funded,
subject
to
Congress,or
citizen-organized.
In
this
decision
the court lreld;
The
"militia"
compri#d
att males
physicaily
apabte
of acting
in &n@rt
for the commondefense'
The
AntifedentisE
feared
that
the
Federat
Governmentwould
disam
thepeopleinofder todisable
this
citizens'militia, enabling
a
potiticizedstanding
amy
or
a
select
militia
to
rule'
The
response
was to deny Congress
powerto abridge
the
ancient
tight
of individualsto
keep
and beararms,
so
that
theideal of a
citizens'
militia
woutd
be
prererved, (cornell
Ltnivercityschoolof Lawsyllabus
of
the
District of
Columbia vs,
Heller
Decigion,June 26/2oOB)
JusUcescaliatopjnion(inpaft)reads
"the"militia"incolonialAmeia@nsistedofasubsetof"the
people'Lthosewho were
mate/ able
bodie4and within a@rtain
age
range'
Readingthe
second
Amendment
as
proteLtingonty the right
to
"keepand
bear Arms"in
an
organized
militiathefefore
frts
poortywith
the
operativeclausebdescriptionof
the
holder ofthat right as
"the
people't
(Jus-
tice Scalia Opinion
District of
Columbia
vs.
Heller)
Considering the definitions
of
a
"f4ilitia"
in
U,S.Code
and the
most
recent SupremeCourt
decisjon,
it
is clear
that
citjzen-formed miljtias are a constitutionallyprotected
activity
as
definedin
both
theprefatory,
"
A
well
regulated
militia,beingnecessarytothesecurityofafreestate",andtheoperativeclauseofthesecondAmendment,
"the
right of thepeople
to
keep
and
beararmsshallnot be
infringed."
Whiletheopinions may seem
to
legitimize
a
citizen-organized
militia,
jt
is also
the
courl'sopinion
thatthe
SecondAmendment doesnotprotect
thisriqht
of citizens
forjust
any
soft
of
confrontation.
The
militia movement
has
had
a history ofviolence
and intimidation,
many timesadvocatjng,
arming,
and training
for
confrontationsimply
forthe sake of creating
civii unrest.
Althoughmilitialeadershipmay advocatecomplete
iaw
abiding compliance,inmanymses individualsare
drawn to
this movementonlyfor
the
sake
of confrontationwithfederal andstateauthorities,
Law enforcement's
ability to
document
this
behavior
and rhetoric
is
critiGl,
LNCLASSIFI
ED'LA\\'
EN
FORCEMENT
SENSITIVE
(U//LES)
Add a Comment