“Democrats in suburban New York are suing a Republican county executive over his creation of an armed unit of volunteer residents, saying it amounts to an illegal, taxpayer-funded civilian militia,’” the Associated Press reported in early February. “Nassau County Democratic lawmakers argue in their complaint filed Wednesday that Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman lacked the legal authority to form a cadre of special sheriff’s deputies with ‘authority to use deadly force and make arrests under color of law.’”
The objection to what they’re calling a “militia” is curious because Democrats are the ones who always scream, “It says ‘well-regulated!’” whenever some gun owner asks, “What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ don’t you understand?”
The volunteer program, intended to supplement police forces and help out in emergencies when regular first responders are overwhelmed, would require classroom instruction and practical firing range training, and “deputies would be assigned to protect government buildings, hospitals and critical infrastructure, and not be used to quell protests or patrol streets,” Blakeman counters, calling the complaint “frivolous” and defamatory to “the 26 volunteers sworn in to date, many of whom are retired military and law enforcement officers.”
Article.VI. of the Constitution requires:
“[A]ll executive … Officers … of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”
That refutes one Democrat complaint articulated to the media and shows it to be implicitly false when attorney Josh Kelner asserts, “New York State law is clear: only professional, sworn officers can wield police powers.”
Still, is this reserve office program really a militia as envisioned by the Founders?
It sounds more like reserve “Only Ones,” and Founding era thought leaders weren’t big on “select militias.” As author/historian David E. Young has documented:
“The necessity of an armed populace, protection against disarming of the citizenry, and the need to guard against a select militia and assure a real militia which could defend liberty against any standing forces the government might raise were topics interspersed throughout the ratification period.”
[Read my 2008 interview with Mr. Young here.]
We’ve seen problems with such citizen/cop programs emerge before, when the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department started a “celebrity reserve/star cop” program. It quickly devolved into a favoritism-exposing fiasco after a member, who was an heir to a prominent food production company, was accused of running out of his Bel-Air house in his underpants, yelling “Stop! Police!” pointing a gun with a laser sight at a couple on a date, causing them to flee in fear from the scene.
The answer lies not with a select militia, but the one envisioned during the ratification debates by Richard Henry Lee:
“A militia when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in great measure unnecessary. The powers to form and arm the militia, to appoint their officers, and to command their services, are very important; nor ought they in a confederated republic to be lodged, solely, in any one member of the government. First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine [ ] and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia ― useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permament interests and attachments in the community is to be avoided. …To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them….”
“Ignoring the core purpose makes the Second Amendment more vulnerable to Infringements,” I argued in pair of Firearms News articles (Part 1 and Part 2). The first 13 words, articulating what the Founders knew to be “necessary to the security of a free state” are the ones ignored by “gun rights” lawsuits” limiting the right to “self-defense.”
So, what about “well regulated”?
Good question.
No politician of either party with a vested interest in the over $100B annual police “industry,” and what President Eisenhower called “the military-industrial complex” seems incentivized to answer it.
Only Purpose of Democrats’ Anti-Militia Bill is to STOP Firearm Training
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
