by: Phil Jacobson, LPNC Messaging Committee and Judiciary Board

LPNC supports the right of all law-abiding citizens to possess and to openly carry firearms for the purpose of defending persons and property. Additionally, we believe that a citizen who openly carries a firearm and who also agrees to follow well formulated regulations should be granted an extra degree of credibility in a court of law. In most jurisdictions, a government-designated police officer is usually granted this presumption. LPNC supports extending this presumption to all citizens who follow safe handling and usage procedures for firearms, and use them in a defensive or protective manner. 

We believe that no citizen should be compelled to join with others for common defense. But we also believe that individual citizens have a right to join with others to form voluntary self-defense organizations. These organizations may authorize armed patrols of specific real estate.  They may provide firearms safety education. They may coordinate protective services for persons and property. On occasion, they may provide defense against other organizations, foreign or domestic. It may even come to pass that their very existence can provide citizens with a counter to neglect or abuse by government agencies. But a great deal of organized defense will occur at a very local level. A neighborhood watch is an example of a voluntary self-defense organization. Commercial security firms, given their relationships with customers, also constitute a form of non-government voluntary organized defense.  

All of the above armed defense organizations (including government police) rely on the right of their individual members to keep and bear arms. To best serve the interests of their members and the community at large, LPNC strongly encourages all armed defense organizations to have strong rules of engagement both for training and for active patrols. These rules should be comprehensive, discourage aggression, and be clearly articulated and repeated =It is generally recognized that government police and military personnel SHOULD have such internal regulations, though we recognize that this is not always the practice. LPNC views private voluntary defense organizations the same way.  

LPNC views even non-government organizations as a form of militia which should be regulated via voluntary agreements between members. The concept of a militia should extend beyond units organized by the various states of the federal union. In earlier times, it was common for isolated communities to be self-sufficient with regard to armed self defense, and to function as an organized militia. We see units such as (but not limited to) modern neighborhood watch organizations as being in this same tradition. We see them, if they endorse armed defense by their members, as a form of militia. We strongly encourage them to be well regulated militias. Again, courts of law tend to give credibility to well regulated government police, and we believe that the same credibility should be accorded to members of any well regulated militia.   

Consider two publicly prominent stories where this was NOT the case: those of George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse. 

George Zimmerman was a member of a neighborhood watch. As part of this membership, George carried a loaded pistol during patrols of the neighborhood. One evening while on patrol George observed an individual, Trevon Martin, walking in the neighborhood. Zimmerman did not recognize Martin as a local resident, and suspected Martin of having criminal intentions. At one point Zimmerman phoned the local government police to report his suspicions. The police asked Zimmerman not to engage the suspect physically. Zimmerman felt that this advice could be ignored, and pursued Martin. The result was a physical struggle between Zimmerman and Martin, during which Zimmerman’s weapon discharged, resulting in Martin’s death.   

Zimmerman’s account of the event was that he had feared for his life, claiming that Martin had attacked him, unprovoked. Martin was later confirmed to have been living legally in one of the neighborhood residences, with every right to walk where Zimmerman had seen him. Since no evidence beyond Zimmerman’s word was available to challenge the story, Zimmerman’s true guilt or innocence was impossible to prove. 

Had Zimmerman been required to obey instructions by the government police, Martin would likely have survived the evening’s events. But Zimmerman’s authority to patrol the neighborhood did not require him to follow such instructions. Had Zimmerman been wearing a working and active video body camera, doubts about his description of the encounter would likely have been confirmed or refuted. But no part of Zimmerman’s authority to conduct an armed patrol required him to provide such evidence of his honesty. 

Kyle Rittenhouse joined a group of individuals who volunteered to serve as armed guards for a piece of commercial real estate, in response to the perceived threat of looting during a major protest event. Kyle decided, apparently on his own, to bring both a semi-automatic rifle and a first aid kit to the event. His stated intent was to provide both armed defense and medical assistance, as might be required. At one point Kyle witnessed what he thought was an injured member of the protest group, some distance beyond the perimeter he was guarding. Again, on his own initiative, it would appear, Kyle decided to leave the defense perimeter and go into the area occupied by these protesters so he could offer first aid. Kyle was not wearing an armband or other symbol to identify himself as a medic. Kyle retained his loaded rifle, and to all around him would have appeared as an infantry soldier, not as a medical technician. He would have looked like any other member of the armed group he had been standing with earlier. Thus, he was quickly misidentified by some of the protesters as an armed threat, rather than as someone offering medical assistance. Certain protesters, who were also armed, responded to Kyle as if he presented a violent threat to their group. A violent conflict ensued which has received significant coverage by news organizations. 

It appears that the armed group which Kyle joined that night was seen by Kyle as a functioning militia. Even so, it did not function as a well regulated militia. It did not provide Kyle with some important guidance. When armed government units deploy during times of civil disturbance, there is no mixture of identity between armed officers and medical personnel covering the same event. Each wears a distinct uniform. The medics don’t carry rifles. 

Kyle’s militia should have had similar concerns. The other militia members should, as a standard procedure, have required Kyle to leave his rifle at the defense perimeter when he chose to offer medical assistance to someone outside the defense perimeter. Should it have been deemed too dangerous to go out unarmed, Kyle’s militia should have instructed Kyle to stay within the militia’s defense perimeter. Ideally, every member of Kyle’s militia should have accepted and learned to follow these and other rules as standard tactical procedures. When someone unfamiliar with these procedures, such as Kyle, wanted to join the militia, they should have been supervised and instructed by a militia member who was familiar with the procedures. Had such provisions been in place, had Kyle joined a well regulated militia, it would have been far less likely that any gun violence would have occurred. 

Kyle was fortunate in one respect. Much of his behavior that night was recorded in videos taken with personal cell phones. Even so, had Kyle himself been wearing a body camera his story might have been more complete. Kyle’s own camera would also have provided a form of insurance, providing him with supporting evidence in a courtroom, even if other videos had not been available. 

Among other job regulations many jurisdictions require police to accept a responsibility to wear and operate body cameras. LPNC supports giving government police this and other responsibilities in exchange for being granted a presumption of good intent. We also encourage any private citizen, when exercising their right to openly carry a firearm, to wear a body camera. We support giving citizens who do so a similar presumption of good intent to that given government police. 

Additionally, we support the right of all citizens to use video cameras in public places. It should be unremarkable that an (apparently) unarmed citizen is wearing the same kind of body camera that police use. We believe that in many situations the deterrent power of a camera can be at least as useful as a firearm, if not more so. A militia which skillfully employed a combination of cameras and firearms would often have an advantage, both in the field and in a courtroom, over a force whose actions were less well documented. Even a citizen militia composed entirely of unarmed individuals operating cameras in coordination would be quite impactful at times. 

A complete list of well formulated regulations is beyond the scope of this essay, but LPNC encourages juries and officers of the court to look with favor on government police, militia members and unaffiliated individual citizens who adopt and follow well formulated regulations. Ultimately this is about more than the law. It is about community perceptions. We do not believe that a community can be at its safest when firearms are a government monopoly. But we also believe that citizens will neither feel safe nor be safe if those who do carry firearms are not expected to respect this carry as a serious responsibility. We believe that this sense of responsibility must be cultivated as a community value, where individuals are held to account by the free flow of information and an honest system of dispute resolution. A critical part of such a system would be the widely held belief in a well regulated militia.