search
top

Montana Considering a Militia Bill

While I would not count myself as a supporter of such a bill, I think the opposition the bill in Montana to establish a “home guard” is overwrought, particularly by our opponents. My main reason for not supporting it is because it’s a symbolic political gesture, rather than something that fills a genuine military need.

That said, I’m not opposed to the idea outright either.  You’re going to have people who are attracted to the idea of being in a militia no matter what you do, and it would seem to me that it would be better for everyone if they were put under control of some form of civil authority, the way our militia system originally worked. And who knows, if Montana were to experience some sort of natural or civil disaster, it might be helpful to have such a force in place at the disposal of authorities to keep and/or restore order.

10 Responses to “Montana Considering a Militia Bill”

  1. Freiheit says:

    How is this different from the National Guard?

  2. Sebastian says:

    Presumably the federal government will not prescribe training or provide equipment.

  3. Matt says:

    How is this any different than state level defense force units that already exist? Both Maryland and Virginia have state defense force units that functionally equivalent to home grown militia. Members are under the authority of the state governor, members must supply their own uniforms and equipment and the members cannot be placed under Federal authority. They serve in support roles for the state National Guard and can be called up to deal with state-level emergencies.

    I don’t see why antis would lose their minds over this. After all, isn’t one of their arguments is you need to be a member of a “well-regulated militia” to own guns. Wouldn’t this qualify? Some pretend like Heller and McDonald are aberrations that will be corrected or repealed much in the same way Roe v. Wade opponents feels about abortion. They should be supporting this! It fits with their stated interpretation of how they think things should be.

  4. love the comments over there. nothing but paranoid anti’s.

    ooooo…..the NRA boogeyman.

  5. Ian Argent says:

    These are the same people who would wig if you described the BSA (quite accurately) as a armed religious paramilitary organization…

  6. Pyrotek85 says:

    I’m glad they proposed this just to see the reactions of the antis lol

  7. Jake says:

    Hmmm. It sounds a lot like what the founders actually envisioned in the first place, instead of what the National Guard has become (essentially a reserve force for the standing military). I don’t see any problem with it, and it has the added bonus that the feds can’t call them up and send them to Afghanistan to get them out of the way if the state government tries to cause “trouble”.

  8. Robert says:

    I hope they find a nice shade of Brown for their uniform shirts.

  9. Alpheus says:

    I was surprised to learn that New York State, of all places, still has State militia units–even sea ones!

  10. Andy says:

    Georgia has a state guard as well. Even touted by Clark Howard, syndicated personal finance host/columnist/etc and occasional spots on HLN.

top