Militia Movement, The | Introduction
Militias in America date back to colonial times, when citizens agreed to provide their services and firearms for mutual defense. Today, militias consist of two types: government-sanctioned state militias and private citizen militias that are unaffiliated with government.
The citizen militia movement has grown rapidly during the 1990s, particularly in western states. Citizen militias in 1996 totaled 441 groups in fifty states, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights organization based in Montgomery, Alabama. These groups adhere to a variety of beliefs, from what many observers have called a paranoid distrust of government to endorsement of white supremacy to espousal of the right to own firearms. Law enforcement and other experts assert that, although widespread, militia members are well connected through computer networks, public forums, radio broadcasts, videos, and numerous publications.
Media and public attention toward citizen militias increased following several high-profile incidents. Militia members and other Americans argued that two federal raids against citizens that resulted in violence and death validated their warnings of an overly authoritarian government. In August 1992, federal law enforcement agents in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, surrounded the secluded cabin of Randy Weaver, wanted for illegal firearms sales. In a shoot-out, agents killed Weaver’s wife and fourteen-year-old son and wounded Weaver and a friend. Near Waco, Texas, in April 1993, more than eighty members of David Koresh’s Branch Davidian religious sect perished when a blaze destroyed their compound after federal agents invaded the complex to end a fifty-one-day siege. A total of five agents were killed by gunfire at Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Anger toward the government’s role in these incidents led to much public support for citizen militias, experts contend. But these groups gained notoriety as well following the April 1995 bombing of an Oklahoma City federal building that killed 169 people. Law enforcement officials alleged that two suspects in the bombing, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, had attended militia meetings and may have received assistance and encouragement from militia members. At the same time, some militia groups theorized that the U.S. government itself orchestrated the blast in order to discredit the militia movement.
Many militia groups warn that Ruby Ridge and Waco are precursors to further abuses of power against private citizens by an oppressive federal government. In fact, Militia of Montana leader John Trochmann maintains that he created his group largely because of the events at Ruby Ridge and Waco. Trochmann and other militia leaders assert that citizen militias are the last line of defense protecting constitutional freedoms against a federal government that they believe is increasingly encroaching on personal rights, including property rights and the right to own firearms. According to Trochmann, “We view the militia movement as a giant neighborhood watch. America has nothing to fear from patriots maintaining ‘vigilance.’ She should, however, fear those that would ‘outlaw’ vigilance.” John Parsons, who was the head of South Dakota’s Tri-States Militia before it disbanded, takes a more combative stance:
Here’s our threat—that if there is a move to do away with our Constitution and Bill of Rights, or to move us into some fuzzy global world under the United Nations, we’re going to fight and die with guns, bullets, and tanks and whatever we can get our hands on.
Fundamental to freedom and the protection of constitutional rights, militia members argue, is Americans’ Second Amendment right to own firearms. They insist that the amendment’s reference to “a well regulated Militia” applies to private citizen militias as well as to government militias. Northern Michigan Regional Militia leader Norman E. Olson writes, “The primary defense of the state rests with the citizen militia bearing its own arms.”
Many critics, however, believe that the right to own firearms does not extend to citizen militias and that private militias are not protected under the U.S. Constitution. According to former U.S. Supreme Court justice Warren E. Burger, “In referring to ‘a well regulated militia,’ the [U.S. Constitution’s] Framers clearly intended to secure the right to bear arms essentially for military purposes.”
Furthermore, many opponents of militias contend that the militias’ endorsement of violence justifies government efforts to suppress the groups. Just two months after the Oklahoma City blast, in June 1995, a U.S. Senate subcommittee held a hearing on citizen militias. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan testified that many militias pose a violent threat by stockpiling firearms and explosives. Levin added that self-described militia members have made threatening telephone calls to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) agents, including the agency’s director. James L. Brown, a BATF deputy director, told the subcommittee that some militia members had assaulted or shot at federal and local law enforcement personnel. According to Levin, “These instances seem to indicate an organized effort against law enforcement officials.”
Critics also contend that the racist sentiment among some militia groups poses a threat to minorities. For example, at the June 1995 Senate hearings, Brown asserted that many militias either advocate white supremacy or are affiliated with white supremacist organizations. Indeed, Southern Poverty Law Center researcher Tawanda Shaw estimates that forty-five militias in twenty-two states have ties to white supremacists. Civil-rights organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League warn that some white supremacist groups may be participating in paramilitary training in preparation to commit violence against minorities. According to New York congressman Peter T. King, such evidence is reason enough to crack down on “scores of heavily armed private armies . . . laced with xenophobic and racist elements.” He writes,
The citizen militia movement threatens the very fabric of a democratic society. Militia members who threaten government and lawenforcement officials with violence are dangerous and should be treated accordingly.
Militia opponents argue that strong measures are required to counter illegal militia activity. These include increased federal surveillance and the enforcement of laws in many states that prohibit unauthorized paramilitary training. In addition, Carl Levin argues, a federal statute outlawing paramilitary activities should be considered. And in 1995, according to Newsweek magazine, the FBI allegedly created a secret task force called the Executive Working Group on Domestic Terrorism, which has reportedly used electronic eavesdropping, undercover agents, and informants to monitor militia members.
However, many observers contend that while the government has a duty to protect the public against the threat of violence, it should be careful not to overreact against militias. Doing so, they argue, could make matters worse by fueling militia members’ distrust and hatred of government. According to sociologist Brent L. Smith, author of Terrorism in America, it is important “not to demonize the demonizers. If Congress makes militias illegal, if they pass more gun control laws, we could see these groups grow in size and scope.”
Supporters of citizen militias view the groups as necessary for the protection of constitutional rights. Opponents contend that militias threaten peace and democracy, no matter how patriotic their intentions. The authors in At Issue: The Militia Movement debate the goals and actions of militias and examine whether these groups constitute a danger to America.
