imported post
The militia question is complicated. US Code or not, I don't recognize any such "duty" any more than I recognize the legitimacy of a military draft.
That said, in the unlikely event we were invaded, I would certainly function in that capacity, showing up with my own maintained, ready weapon.
I think the militia concept in the United States needs a kind of reboot, as I don't think, overall, the public (the "people") trust militias - or even the concept of one, owing to the handful of loonies on the fringes of the movement who have given it a bad name.
Your local militia ought to be the people with guns the locals trust the *most*, relative to law enforcement and the military, because they are supposed to be drawn from, and represent, their local communities.
This isn't the case at present. Groups like the Hutaree are why. Even the language some militias choose to describe the orientation of their members is loaded with terminology ("New World Order," is one example) which causes a significant percentage of the population considerable dread.
All this said, I think there's a way you can go about things, and part of this is to expand the function of militias beyond the tactical/guns thing - which needs to be a part of the concept, obviously, but it'd be nice if you opened the paper and saw something like:
Springfield Civilian Defense Squad
offering free CPR courses in Johnson Park
Saturday, May 15th
Learn to save lives!
What really makes people uneasy are the insurrectionary undercurrents in militias, which frankly make me kind of uneasy too.
First, militias ought to ideally reflect the demographics of their community. I'm not talking about political correctness or affirmative action but militia guys really all tend to come off like they were cut from the same cloth (I'm in that white guy approaching middle age demographic myself).
Secondly, too many militias focus on "like minded" types ideologically. A mission statement is important, and way too many insist on dragging Christianity into it, which alienates Jews, Muslims, atheists, and even those wary of the way religion and guns tend to mix (though perhaps privately Christians themselves). There ought to be room for diversity and disagreement. I shouldn't have to pray with anyone to be part of my local militia. And I sure shouldn't be worried someone's going to mix up a batch of kool aid.
Third, a specific declaration that the job of a militia is to preserve civilization needs to be up front, because a lot of people are under the impression that militias really want the opposite: a breakdown in civil order, where they can be the local authority. This may be unfair, but it's a PR problem militias have. Militias ought to come off more like Eagle Scouts or Civil Air Patrol than paramilitary types, even if firearms training and related subjects are part of the overall experience.
Just like the scouts have merit badges, there ought to be similar, achievable skill "certs," including a core curriculum (including first aid, cpr, basic firearms, probably other things), and then "specializations" like radio, paramedic, hazmat, and so on.
Information ought to be freely exchanged/taught. There is a place for private instruction for profit, and a place where people ought to be willing to exchange knowledge for reciprocal benefit. Those who do not have skills to teach can be trained, and in turn become trainers eventually. Sort of like a skills potluck.
Social events ought to be part of any militia, where there is no drilling or training involved. This is important for coherence. People ought to know each other well, place a premium on those relationships, and engender trust as a result. It is also an opportunity for public outreach where curious people can be introduced to people wearing "civvies" and eating hamburgers, rather than show up to an event where everyone is carrying firearms and dressed in camouflage. My own experience with firearms is that those who are uncomfortable with them can be "eased into" them, and I suspect the same is true for militias, in regard to those without any kind of military interest or enthusiasm (I am one).
To any constructive extent possible, militias ought to be very open to the public, including media and law enforcement. They should not be secretive or something that busybodies in the federal government or law enforcement feel they need to "infiltrate," when they can just come to any meeting and participate or observe. Law enforcement should have the militia in mind in the event of a national emergency where additional bodies are needed. It should be the most obvious pool from which to draw volunteers.
Militias ought to be democratic. Cults of personality or "my way or the highway" types will not, in the long run, succeed with people who will not assent to hierarchical, military forms of organization. A citizen's militia ought to be an extension of one's civic life, where one is a more or less sovereign individual fulfilling a role as a caretaker of the Republic he lives in.
Now as you defer to your surgeon on decisions about how to go about surgery, or as you might defer to your mechanic on how to fix your vehicle, quite obviously you'd defer to experts on how to go about doing things you yourself are not expert in. How "command structures" would work in is unclear, but trying to graft military hierarchy onto an ostensibly "citizen" militia is a bad idea. Seems to me there ought to be "coordinators" rather than commanders, with mechanisms for electing/recalling coordinators, "specialists" with advanced skillsets in certain areas, and "generalists" who would make up the bulk of the organization.
Anyway these are just my personal ideas, and just my own opinion. People will do what they want to do and organize as they please. But I still say militias have a much stronger chance of success, and becoming part of American life, when they are large and diverse rather than small and "fringe," which many are.