Dispelling the Myth of the Second Amendment - Mary B. McCord

Oct 22, 2026

Essay argues that private paramilitary organizations pose serious threats to public safety, national security, and constitutional order, highlighting the January 6 U.S. Capitol insurrection. It addresses how coordinated provision of weapons and encouragement of violence influenced others’ behavior, and explains that the mythology of Second Amendment protection for private armies is unfounded. The author states federal and state law prohibit private militias and emphasizes that vigilantism would exceed the self-defense right recognized by the Supreme Court.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages10

Reading Time25 min

AccessFree to download

PROTESTS, INSURRECTION, AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Dispelling the Myth of the Second Amendment

A “Well Regulated Militia” Means Regulated by the Government

PROTESTS, INSURRECTION, AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT Dispelling the Myth of the Second Amendment By Mary B. McCord , Executive Director, Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, and Visiting Professor of Law , Georgetown University Law Center PUBLISHED JUNE 2021 If there were ever any doubt about the threat that private paramilitary organizations pose to public safety, national security, and the United States constitutional order, the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6 should have laid it to rest. The most significant conspiracy charges to be filed have been against members of two private paramilitary organizations —one more traditional in its anti-government views and emphasis on military-style training and military dress,1 and the other more emphatic about its white male“chauvinism” and willingness to openly encourage violence against perceived ideological enemies.2 The charging documents make clear that these groups coordinated their activities, including the provision of weapons, and likely were instrumental in influencing the behavior of others who may not have initially intended to assault U.S. Capitol Police, forcibly overrun the U.S. Capitol, and physically prevent the certification of the Electoral College vote. Although the size of the mob and its temporary success in interfering with government functions was shocking and frightening to watch, that extremist paramilitary organizations would use violence on January 6 was not a surprise, and indeed was an outgrowth of their increasing engagement with the public over the past year. Sometimes amassing to forcibly oppose government policies (as they did when storming statehouses in protest against government-imposed public health orders related to Covid-19) 3 and sometimes claiming to augment legitimate police forces (as they did when self-deploying during racial justice demonstrations, ostensibly to protect property against violent anarchists),4 private militias have repeatedly used their assault rifles and military gear to intimidate and coerce others. After an election season during which they seeded the false narrative of election fraud and doubled down on it after November 3, far-right paramilitary organizations joined forces with conspiracy theorists and violent extremists to act on these fictitious and baseless claims, radicalizing others along the way. 5 Tragic as the loss of lives, serious injuries, property damage, and undermining of democracy were on January 6, one can only imagine the carnage that likely would have occurred if the District of Columbia allowed the open carrying of firearms like many states do. The United States must reckon with the growing threat posed by unauthorized private militias, which have been allowed to proliferate for far too long. This essay attempts to correct the widespread mythology that the Second Amendment protects private paramilitary organizations and —even worse—that it protects their right to forcibly oppose whatever they view as government tyranny. To the contrary, there is no authority under federal or state law for private individuals to form their own private armies ; the Supreme Court has been clear that the Second Amendment does not prevent states from outlawing private paramilitary organizations; and indeed, all 50 states prohibit them through their state constitutions, state statutes, or a combination of both. Yet such organizations’ continued projection of armed authority over others—sending a clear message of intimidation and coercion —is not just dangerous, it also squelches the First Amendment rights of those seeking to express their views, peaceably assemble, and petition their government. This essay also briefly responds to suggestions that private force has a role to play when law enforcement fails. To grant such vigilante authority to publicly unaccountable and unregulated private actors would go well beyond the individual right to bear arms for self-defense recognized by the

FAQs

Why does the essay oppose giving private actors vigilante authority when law enforcement fails?

Because it would go beyond the individual right to bear arms for self-defense recognized by the Supreme Court. It warns that lethal weapons and unaccountable decision-making would raise serious public-safety risks.

Oct 22, 2026

Upload by SundayMiles