Perhaps a little history would be helpful. As I tried to point out in the pit thread that engendered this discussion, the existence of a militia has a long and not always proud tradition in America and Britain. American colonial militia served along side British regulars in the French and Indian Wars and a fair part of the colonial militia was drafted into British regular units to bring them up to strength. This practice was the subject of much controversy at the time because it subjected militiamen to regular army discipline, service under un-elected officers and was claimed by the British authority to void the drafted militiamen’s short term service contract. Colonial militia played a significant role in the reduction of French Canada, to include the siege of Quebec.
Following the French and Indian wars colonial militia continued to play a role in the defense of the frontier and the maintenance of public order. Until the outbreak of unrest in New England (the Boston Tea Party, the Boston Massacre) and the Intolerable Acts, the colonial militia was about the only armed force south of the St. Lawrence River. Select companies of the militia were designated as a rapid reaction force (if you would), designated as prepared to report fullyarmed, provisioned and equipped on 30 minutes notice. These were the Minute Men. The colonial militia was armed and equipped at the expense of the government. Part of the taxation without representation fight was over the colonies reimbursing the Motherland for the expense of arming and paying the militia.
When the crises came in the spring of 1774 at Lexington, Concord, Boston and Charlestown, it was the colonial militia, armed with British muskets, shooting British bullets with British gunpowder that faced the British garrison. These were not rag-tag farmers and tradesmen armed with their private fowling pieces, they were organized militia units and were, in my judgment, the people bearing arms within the meaning of the Second Amendment.
The great bulk of the armed forces serving under Washington, Gates and the other American commanders were militiamen serving for short terms, typically for 30 or 90 days. You will remember Washington’s frustration over his inability to hold an army together because his militia units were constantly going home. There were relatively few American regular formations, called “Continentals”, who were enlisted for a long term.
The leading politicians of the Colonial, Confederation and early Federalist periods had much faith in militias and considerable fear of standing armies. They had before them the example of the English Civil War, the Highland Rebellions and the role of the British army in the Revolution. The Constitution gave the Federal Government the power to have a standing army. There was considerable concern that a standing army would become an instrument of Federal tyranny (see Shay’s Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion). The guarantee of the existence of State controlled militias independent of federal control was seen as the counterbalance to the military power of the national government. To the greatest extent the regular army was kept small and there was reliance on the State militias to meet the country’s military needs. Thus the War of 1812 was fought largely with militia forces, as were the Indian troubles up through the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln’s service during the Black Hawk War was as a short term militiaman.
The experience of using militia as a national armed force was a speckled one. Militia tended to be poorly trained and disciplined and its officers tended to be marginally competent. For every Battle of the Thames or Tippecanoe there was a St. Clair’s Defeat or a Siege of Detroit or a burning of Washington City. Nonetheless, the usefulness and value of the militia system was an article of faith up through the Civil War. Scott’s Campaign in Mexico involved militia units. The Mississippi Rifles, J. Davis, commanding, was a militia unit.
In the Civil War the State designated units on both sides were technically militia units mustered into national service and many of those units were initially clothed, equipped and armed at state expense. Kansas militia served with regular units in Hancock’s Campaign against the Indians in the years right after the Civil War. Militia units served in Cuba and the Pacific during the Spanish-American War and the Philippine Insurrection, although under the “mustered into Federal service” scheme.
It was not until the period just before WWI that the old militia system was transformed into the National Guard system we still have. While NG units are subject to the orders of their particular State government, the procedure for calling the NG to national service is pretty summary, as was demonstrated when President Eisenhower nationalized the Arkansas NG. When the Gov. mobilized the NG to keep Black students out of Central High School in Little Rock, Eisenhower called the NG to national service to protect the Black students, directly contrary to the State’s orders.
Clearly the militia system that the Founders knew and understood as the people armed has been transformed into something much different and has not existed for least 100 years.
That being said, it is clear to me that the private militias floating around have nothing to do with the militia as contemplated by the founders and by the Second Amendment. Those militias were subject to control by public officers who were presumably answerable to the electorate. Clearly the private militias are not answerable to anyone. Indeed, the private militias seem more akin to some sort of Marching and Pier-loo Society, or the Elks or Moose Clubs (not to defame the Elks and Moose) than to any real military organization. They more closely resemble the Conditori battalions of Renaissance Italy and freebooter bands of patriots/bandits than anything else.
However, like the historical militia, the modern private militias seem to be a pretty weak reed. They are clearly deficient in organization, training and logistics and have no command structure worthy of the name. The dominant impression is that they are over grown children playing at soldiers, with a strain of paranoia thrown in for good measure.