Spin Control: My inbox suggests the idea of militias for AR-15 owners wasn’t completely crazy

After years of writing a newspaper column, I’ve learned certain topics generate negative responses – early and often – from readers.

Guns, abortion and false claims about election fraud top the list.

Like most columnists, I expect some readers to disagree with me and view negative responses as an affirmation they at least read what was written. But when writing about those topics, I usually turn off my cellphone, the number for which the paper puts at the bottom of each column, to avoid being awakened at 6 a.m. by early-rising readers who can’t wait to call and tell me how wrong I am

It’s not that I don’t want to talk to them. But many usually assume that’s my office number and expect just to leave a message. Some are genuinely surprised, and often apologetic, when I answer with a sleepy “hello” sandwiched between two yawns.

That was the process two weeks ago for a column suggesting a way to rein in the carnage from semi-automatic military-style rifles by requiring any owner to be part of a well-regulated militia that would mandate at least a modicum of training and oversight.

In switching the phone on after a second cup of coffee, however, I was surprised to find no angry messages.

It’s possible that some readers who consider themselves strong defenders of an absolutely unfettered right to bear arms may have given up on me. A check of email, the other source of reader quick-response, revealed a surprising amount of positive reaction, including that I was not completely out of my mind.

One reader – who described himself as a former cop, ER worker and Army vet from Valleyford, whose daughter was a freshman at Freeman High School when the shooting took place there – said the idea was not crazy. Which was pretty strong praise, considering he has written some letters to the editor of this paper, as he put it, trying “to defend the rights of responsible gun owners against the hysteria of the gun control mafia.”

Some laws are already in place, including the federal Militia Law of 1903, and a Washington law that sets up an organization known as the State Guard that offers support in state or national emergencies, he said.

“With some effort and a willingness to work together both gun control and (gun) owners could give some but get some,” he wrote. “Sadly, both sides are so entrenched it will probably never happen.”

Another suggested what he called “military standard privilege.” That idea would allow members of modern-day “Minute Men” militia to keep a military-style weapon at home for personal defense to protect themselves and their families, but that would be taken away if the owner were found with the gun outside the home unless the militia were called to defend the Constitution’s “security of a free state” against a government gone rogue.

A Hayden Lake reader said he liked the idea of setting up a “well-regulated militia” for people who believe the Second Amendment has lasting historical significance and relevance, but had reservations about keeping semi-automatic military-style rifles in the militia’s armory. To him, that brought up questions about who would have the key and who would be in charge of regulating the militia.

It seems the access question could be solved by an electronic key-card system that allows entrance to the armory and to a member’s individual storage locker, with a record of who enters and exits. As for who is in charge, the modern-day militias could take a page from their colonial counterparts, with members electing their leaders. Obviously, they might elect a person who doesn’t turn out to be a good leader, but that’s always a possible consequence of democracy.

Another reader suggested gun owners should be required to have insurance, just as a car owner is required to have insurance. To purchase any gun or ammo, you would have to show proof of insurance as well as a license that shows you passed a class and took a gun-safety test.

That has some possibilities, too, as the premium for a .22 caliber rifle could be much less than the premium for an AR-15, just as the premium for an old beater is less than the premium for a 2022 Corvette. The state might also require a certain minimum of liability insurance, but an owner could purchase more comprehensive coverage for things like theft.

Would any or all of these ideas pass constitutional muster? Not being a lawyer, I can’t say. The column was primarily an exercise in thinking out loud, so plenty of details would need to be worked out. As always, the details are what count.

All the ideas came in before Thursday, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the New York “proper cause” requirements for an unrestricted concealed carry permit, so it’s possible that even lawyers couldn’t be sure yet.

The bigger question is always what can get through Congress. They might not be enough for progressives in the House, but they go much farther than the gun safety bill working its way through the Senate.

But it was a heartening to get positive responses on the topic of gun safety.