The report was very fair to the subject, as I was pleasantly surprised.

I'd suggest to the candid audience, that the approach is fundamentally sound. taking a community preparation approach in a overt manner is a good way to bring back the militia tradition of the US. As long time members certainly know, I advocate putting the theory into practice When taking this approach, infiltration is a manor concern because the activities would only be a problem in states that have anti military traiing statutes on the books. Even left wing lawyers can be found that see freedom of association issues with prohibiting militia organizations. The one fault I will find with the approach is the typical practice of those without the relavent military experience to organize top down, rather than bottom up.

Doing it as an overt militia, rather than covertly, does a couple of things. (A) It provides a basis for having a public discussion about the role of the militia, the 2A, and how the whole concept should work (B) Provides a mechanism for preserving the tradition of having the civil power superior to the military power, and brings back the traditions of the Militia Act of 1792.

While organizing covertly may seem like the smart thing to do operationally, it creates many issues (A) public perception of hiding something, which tends not to win friends (B) the .gov will target you (C) which leads to the question of who is responsible for the actions of the unit - our government is based on being answerable to one's fellow citizens (D) There is a scenario in which many of the actions contemplated by covert groups would be part of the force equation. There is time to train for that when needed, an overt group could transition to that mission if needed, and concentrating on that mission leaves the covert group out in the cold, if a state should take on the nullification task, and work to rebuild its military forces using the Militia Act of 1793 as the model.