Jeromiah

irJay" Njxon John M. Britl James F. Xeathley Van Godsey

Diector, DPs colonel, MSHP 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 gov-
ernment 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 op-
portunity 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 at Jeast the year 1642 and orlgjnated in Britain, being created by the
BrilishParliamenttoprovjdeforthe"safetyoftheKingdom"duringthePuritanrevolution. Thesecommittees
had 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 but
claimed 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 infre-
quently 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 mat-
ters, 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 lay-
ered system of committees at the township/ county, and provincial levels, governed themselves.

Modern Commiftees of Safety and thb relationship to Militias

The modern Committee of Safety may be one of two types of organjzationsr Either a group of citizens formed to
.'one
act as voice,, in addressing local or state governments, or the committee may just be a "front" organization
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"Unor-
ganized", "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". USCodeTitlel0,SubA,
Pa( I, Seclior 311-313

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 Na-
tional 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 re-
garding interpretation of the Second Amendment,

Note that in the most re@nt 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 &n@rt 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"incolonialAmeia@nsistedofasubsetof"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 (Jus-
tice 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, "the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

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 law-
lessness 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 protected

Sources of information for this document include:

The Provincial Committees of Safeb/ by Agnes Hunt Ph D
-The
IYilitia Watchdoo website,

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

MdsswwsM Swffiwwspmm&B@m ffima8wsEs @emner

Divlsion of Drug & Crime Contol, P. O Box 568, Jefferson City, lVlO 651 02-0568
Phone: 573-751-6422 TollFree: 866-362'6422 Fax: 573-751'9950 otrE*
MAC DtSCLAreR: kh rsvshdr snoub be ctuMd LAfl ENFffiCffiNt SENsttW Fnd
At trhmrlilconlzined in khnet n Mhc6d b hw entffienent
a^drggrchs'hh@EragdesadDNpafu6nlalDdhnsEoIgxnn'tiffiofu'ufussw4lovdh6hkedlnnhe
MEDtisauicEs iifi.riciddw it"nayuan,a*"i,'apsaasvuwn'nnstdilNktswkvilbrrno@dhMidgltdhnh6.a

UNCLASSIFIED//LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITI\/E (U//LES)