Jeromiah
irJay" Njxon
John M.
Diector,
Britl DPs
James F.
colonel,
Xeathley MSHP
Van Godsey
Dtector, Mlac
MIAC Strategic
Ale*
.Ianuary 9,2OO9 Modern Comrnittees of SafetY Voice of the People
or Militias in Dlsguise?lYany factors have contributed to the most
recent surge in what is being perceived as extreme right wing
activjq/, Issues such as the world-wide financial market meltdown,
the seemingly inadequate response of the federal government to
natural and man-made disasters, the terrorist threat to our
society, and the djsenfranchisement of various segments of society
either along racial, economic, sexual or reiigious lines, have all
served to provide opportunity for response from more "activism"
oriented persons and organizations nationwide. This assessment will
provjde information on just one response to these issues: The
Commfttees of Safety,
Early History:Committees of Safety have existed since
atJeast
the year 1642 and orlgjnated in Britain, being created by
the
BrilishParliamenttoprovjdeforthe"safetyoftheKingdom"duringthePuritanrevolution.
Thesecommitteeshad no defined policies; rather they were tasked
with providing input to the government regarding cjvil unrest.
In the pre-Revolution American colonies, one oi the earljest
known uses of the term committee of safety was during the land
djsput (the New Hampshire Grants) betvveen the colony of New York
and the people of New Hampshire. This dispute eventually resulted
in sort of a mini-rebellion against New York and the creatjon of
the Republic of Vermont, iater to be admitted into the Union as the
state of Vermont. The Committee of Safety at that time (Ethan
Allen's) was tasked with keeping order within those areas granted
by New Hampshire butclaimed by New York.As ihe Crown increased
taxes within the colonies, and since the British Parliament had no
direct representatjon from those colonies, there arose a movement
to establish Committees of Safety, Protection, and Correspondence
in order to represent colonial interests in the meetings of the
local provincial governments. ]n effect, these committees acted as
a government that co-existed alongside the legitimate government of
the Crown Aithough these committees would eventually form the core
of the representatives of the thirteen colonies that formed the
Second Continental Congress, their jnitial authority was derived
from the provincial conventions that met infrequently to address
colonial concerns before the Crown. During the times when the
provincial conventions were ;ot in session, the Committees of
Safety were authorized to "keep watch over the provinces" In doing
so, they were authorjzed to call out the provjncial militia. Even
though the Committees of Safety initially had very limited duties,
as time progressed and the British authorjty was for the most paft
ignored, the Committees provjded more important seryices including
judicial duties in trial proceedings, draft authorization for the
militias, procuring armaments, taxation, regulation of intercolony
commerce, issuance of currencies and adjudicatior of civil matters,
The government of the colonies, due to British atrogance, excessive
taxation, and out of Sheer necessity, became government by
commjttees, This colonial government was truly one in which the
people, through a layered system of committees at the township/
county, and provincial levels, governed themselves.
Modern Commiftees of Safety and thb relationship to MilitiasThe
modern Committee of Safety may be one of two types of
organjzationsr Either a group of citizens formed to .'one voice,,
in addressing local or state governments, or the committee may just
be a "front" organization act as for the formation of a private,
paramilitary militia. Any discussion of the.legitimacy of militia
activity must be prefaced by several definitions of exactly whal is
a "lvliljtia"
UNCLASSIFIED//LA\I/ ENFORCEMENT SENSITI\/E GTI/LES)
lYilitjas in the United Sates (exclusive of the
Pre-Revolutionary organizations) reached their first peak in the
fvlid 1990's, At the time, mjlitia activisis justified the
existence of their groups based on lang uage found in U S codes,
cour-t decisions, and presumed historical "facts" gathered from a
variety of sources (some reliable, some oFquestionablereljabiljty.)
Thegroupsusedsomelimesconfusingwordstodescrjbetheirgroupssuchasl"Unorganized",
"ConstitutionaJ", "Volunteer", "Citizen's Organized'; in an attempt
to legjtimize their activities, and be vlewed as havinq compiied
with both federal code and slate statute,
Forourpurposes,l4ilitiasmaybeciassifiedsimplyas"Organized",or"Unorganized".
Pa( I, Seclior 311-313
USCodeTitlel0,SubA,
Orguixut Mititi[ are the federally funded, Army and Air National
Guards including some Naval militjas. There are also a few state
"Defense Forces" subject to cll-out by the state governors who
actually trajn periodicalJy and are uniformed bul not federally
funded, lvlissouri has no state defense force and relies on a
federaliy funded National Guard for emergencies.Ilnoryanixett
nilitias arc comprised of "alJ able bodied men, aged 17 to 45, who
are not members of the organized lvlilitia". Several other
exemptions are in pJace which exclude women, the Vice President,
Postal workers, vessel captains, etc, Clearly, this description of
"unorganized militia" provides a pool of eligible males in time of
national emergency, Militia organizers have relied on this
description of what constitutes the "Unorganjzed lr4ilitia" to
justiry the forma-
tiof of private paramilitary groups, Some academics insist that
these militias are not militias at all, and may not call themselves
that. However for law enforcement purposes, if it is modeled on
miijtary structure either in a small or large unit sense, engages
in paramiljtary training, has organization and leadership of some
sort, it is a militia. Academics who argue that privately funded
and maintained groups calling themselves militias are not,and
therefore may not legally assume that identity must take note of
the most recent Supreme Couft decision regarding interpretation of
the Second Amendment,
Note that in the most [email protected] SecondAmendment ase reviewby the
United States Supreme Couft in the Case, District of Columbja vs.
Heller, the cout provided an "originalist" decision reaffirming the
intent of the framers of the Constitutjon that the ianguage ofthe
Second Amendment "a well-regulated militia" describes both the
organized and unorganized mjljtia whether federally-funded, subject
to Congress, or citizen-organized. In this decision the court
lreld; The "militia" compri#d att males physicaily apabte of acting
in &[email protected] for the common defense' The AntifedentisE feared that
the Federat Government would disam the people in ofder to disable
this citizens'militia, enabling a potiticized standing amy or a
select militia to rule' The response was to deny Congress power to
abridge the ancient tight of individuals to keep and bear arms, so
that the ideal of a citizens' militia woutd be prererved, (cornell
Ltnivercity school of Law syllabus of the District of Columbia vs,
Heller Decigion, June 26/ 2oOB)
JusUcescaliatopjnion(inpaft)reads
"the"militia"[email protected]"the people'Lthose
who were mate/ able bodie4 and within a @rtain age range' Reading
the second Amendment as proteLting onty the right to "keep and bear
Arms" in an organized militia thefefore frts poorty with the
operative clauseb description of the holder of that right as "the
people't (Justice Scalia Opinion District of Columbia vs.
Heller)Considering the definitions of a "f4ilitia" in U,S. Code and
the most recent Supreme Court decisjon, it is clear that
citjzen-formed miljtias are a constitutionally protected activity
as defined in both the prefatory, " A well regulated
militia,beingnecessarytothesecurityofafreestate",andtheoperativeclauseofthesecondAmendment,right
of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"the
While the opinions may seem to legitimize a citizen-organized
militia, jt is also the courl's opinion that the Second Amendment
does not protect this riqht of citizens forjust any soft of
confrontation. The militia movement has had a history of violence
and intimidation, many times advocatjng, arming, and training for
confrontation simply for the sake of creating civii unrest.
Although militia leadership may advocate complete iaw abiding
compliance, in many mses individuals are drawn to this movement
only for the sake of confrontation with federal and state
authorities, Law enforcement's ability to document this behavior
and rhetoric is critiGl,
LNCLASSIFI ED'LA\\'
EN
FORCEM ENT SENSITIVE (U//LES)
Therefore, given the status of the legitjmacy of the "l\4ilitia"
movement, the historical documentation of the lawlessness that has
accompanjed the movement, and the close inteLrelationship of the
modern-day Committees of Safety with unorganized miJitia units, il
is wofthwhile to examine that relationship on an individual
basis.
Committees of Safety in Missouri
Fjrst and Second Amendment-protected activities and
organizations of this kind have a history of being infiltrated and
influenced by those individuals who are truiy extremist. That is,
persons who are willing to kill, or be killed for issues as trivial
as the right of the states to issue drivert licenses. Even now/
early in the formation of this movement, there is rhetoric and
reference to self-appointed "Common Law" Grand Jury activity being
leg'timate, That being the case, there is already an jndjcation
that e\tremism is alive and well within the Committees of Safety,
Given the fouJ reputation the militia movement has with the general
public, their leadership may use the Committee of Safetv as a
front.
The challenqe for law enforcement agencies is to determine
whether their respective Committees of Safety are in actuality
militia suppoft mechanisms, and whether or not the militia they
are, or support is subversive or violent in nature. Offrcers have a
further challenge of determining the extent of extremist
infiltration into Committees of Safety, all the while bearing the
addjtional responsibility to ensure that the First Amendment right
to freedom of speech, assembly, and redress of grievances is
protectedSources of information for this document include: The
Provincial Committees of Safeb/ by Agnes Hunt Ph -The IYilitia
Watchdoo website,
D
The Cornell University School of Law The Library of Congress
Majodty Opinion United States Supreme Court District of Columbia vs
Heller Revoluuonary War Archives The Committee of Safety Support
Websites including; www.committee.org
MdsswwsMMAC DtSCLAreR:
Swffiwwspmm&[email protected]
ffima8wsEs @emnerlVlO 651 02-0568khnet n Mhc6d b hw
entffienent
Divlsion of Drug & Crime Contol, P.At
trhmrlilconlzinedin
O Box 568, Jefferson City,
kh rsvshdr snoub be ctuMd LAfl ENFffiCffiNt SENsttW Fnd
a^drggrchs'[email protected]'tiffiofu'ufussw4lovdh6hkedlnnheMEDtisauicEs
Phone: 573-751-6422 TollFree: 866-362'6422 Fax:
573-751'9950it"nayuan,a*"i,'apsaasvuwn'[email protected]
otrE*
iifi.riciddw
UNCLASSIFIED//LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITI\/E (U//LES)
