An Inconvenient Truth About Modern Citizen Militias
Their current character threatens the very core of democracy.
An anti-government militia’s occupation of administrative buildings on an Eastern Oregon federal wildlife refuge has (quite literally) seized the first national headlines of 2016. As their standoff with law enforcement continues, columnists as well as citizens on social media have been critical toward the press and law enforcement’s understated response to this revolt, mounted by white, Christian men compared to the disparaging, racially coded language and heavy-handed “peacekeeping” employed to address Black Lives Matter protests and violence perpetrated by (then-suspected) extremist Muslims.
Their skepticism is justified. In a similar situation involving black or Muslim dissidents, it is hard to imagine major outlets like the New York Times and Fox News relegating it to a sidebar or the Associated Press calling the occupation “peaceful.” That local authorities have not called for reinforcements from state and federal levels, despite the fact that the occupiers are heavily armed while unarmed protestors in Ferguson and Baltimore were met by the National Guard, also supports the belief that the militiamen’s identity privileges their intentions with less suspicion. The White House and other law enforcement agencies’ refusal to refer to the occupation as an act of terrorism appears to continue a tradition of the government stubbornly shielding violence perpetrated by white Christians from that label.
While these critics note the key characteristics of many of today’s militias that align them with right-wing hate groups, specifically that they tend to be overtly white supremacist, anti-immigrant, Islamophobic and hold conspiracy theories about “big government,” they do so only in passing. They have ignored a more fundamental question, one which is uncomfortable and inconvenient but in light of this occupation and recent Islamophobic acts, an unavoidable one.
What actual function do citizen militias perform in America today? Are they necessary to protect local communities, filling in where government falls short, or are they extremist groups concealing their hateful ideology under a veneer of constitutional legitimacy to threaten a social order that they happen to disagree with?
Given the wording of the Second Amendment, this question is quite thorny:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Supreme Court decisions have firmly established that the latter half gives private citizens the right to possess firearms for “traditionally lawful purposes.” But laws on militias differ from state to state. Approximately half have laws regulating their activity, typically prohibiting them from parading and exercising in public with weapons. Only Wyoming explicitly forbids their existence entirely.
That line in Wyoming’s state law stipulates that the “organized national guard or troops of the United States” are the exception to the ban. This is noteworthy because the National Guard is designated as the official militia of the United States. It is under dual control at the state and federal levels but is most often called upon by governors to respond to natural disasters or to quell civil unrest.
Evidently, the constitutionally designated “well-regulated militia” already exists. It serves its purpose to protect the state as a very result of its government-authorized status — the formal training its members receive and their inclusion in the official chain of command are what enable the Guard to execute its mandated function during a crisis.
Associations of armed citizens not under government direction, referred to by federal law as the “unorganized militia” do not come close to being able to successfully keep other citizens safe should another Hurricane Katrina or protest-turned-riot occur. In fact, their fringe beliefs endanger large segments of the American population. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, identified 276 militias existing in 2015. The FBI classifies them as a domestic terror threat because their stockpiles of weapons and ammunition, some of which consists of illegally modified automatic weapons and explosive devices, make it possible for them to act on their hateful, paranoid ideology in violent ways.
The FBI’s Counterterrorism Division recently reported that extremist militias actively espouse violent rhetoric and plot against Muslims and Islamic religious institutions. In 2010, nine members of a Michigan militia group were arrested for seditious conspiracy and attempted use of weapons of mass destruction, among other charges. A 51-day siege in Waco between and federal agents and a Christian extremist militia harboring illegal weapons in 1993 resulted in a bloody shootout that killed 80 militiamen and four ATF agents.
The existence of heavily armed right-wing hate groups can no longer continue to be protected by social norms appealing to “American values” and disregard by federal law enforcement agencies, when they should be vigorously monitored and restricted as the potential domestic terror cells they are.
The FBI defines domestic terrorism as “the unlawful use, or threatened use, of violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States…committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” The Oregon militia’s actions clearly fit this definition, yet the strongest action that law enforcement has taken against them is to shut off power to the building.
The FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms must take a more proactive role in monitoring armed right-wing groups and enforcing gun laws against militias that stockpile illegal weapons. Federal counterterrorism programs have excessively focused on the perceived threat of Islamic extremism after 9/11, yet comprehensive data demonstrates that a jihadist threat within US borders is far less of an immediate danger to the public than that posed by right-wing extremists. The lower frequency of jihadist-related deaths can certainly be attributable to stringent government action, given we don’t know how many potential attacks have been foiled, but the markedly higher incidences of right-wing violence shows that federal agencies need to focus greater efforts on that segment of the terror threat.
Not all militias plot violence against government agents or minority citizens. But the white supremacist, anti-regulation beliefs intrinsic to their political cohort, added with their fervor for guns makes for potentially lethal combination worthy of heavier scrutiny.
A national ban on citizen militias will most likely not be supported by the courts; the Second Amendment’s wording touted by the nation’s robust gun lobby will almost certainly ensure that. Additionally, the First Amendment protects even the right of right-wing ideologues to assemble and profess anti-government beliefs. But those right do not protect right-wingers from prosecution when they actively plot violence, or mount armed challenges against the state. Our system of government gives every citizen a voice and peaceful channels with which to issue grievances. Just because someone doesn’t agree with the decisions that are ultimately reached does not give him a right to take up arms to disrupt the social order. Extremist militias are clearly abusing the historical and legal premises that allow for their existence; it is time law enforcement launched a proportional response. The government’s legitimacy and minority citizens’ safety depend on it.
Opinion Editor Ashley Yang is fed up with the proliferation of right-wing violence in America. Reach her here, or follow her on Twitter.
