MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Tea Partiers out there are now pushing for the creation of a state militia in, of all places, Oklahoma. They say a new volunteer militia would help defend against what they see as federal infringements on state sovereignty. This Monday marks, by the way, the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, which was done at the hands of Timothy McVeigh.

Al Gerhart heads a group of Tea Party factions collectively known as the Oklahoma Constitutional Alliance. Al, thank you for coming on HARDBALL. I want to give you a thought -- all your thoughts here. What do you think would be the purpose of a militia, in terms of restricting a legitimate debate, of course, what should be the role of the federal government. We've been arguing about it for about 250 years. What would be the role of an armed militia, though?

AL GERHART, TEA PARTY LEADER: Well, the militia they were speaking about was one that was controlled by the state, by the governor. So it's not what most people consider militia. It's more of a state defense force. There are a total of 22 states that have defense forces already. Oklahoma happens to be the only one that has an inactive force.

The purpose would be to back up the National Guard. When our National Guard is deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan, or they don't have the equipment here, that's when the state guard could step in.

MATTHEWS: What role would it play vis-a-vis our own government?

GERHART: Our own government, on a theoretical level? I guess if a state guard ever thought they could stand up to the federal government, they would probably get squashed.

MATTHEWS: So what would be -- what would be symbolic? I mean, is this a symbolic thing? I wonder what -- luckily, we haven't had wars since the Civil War that I can remember, but -- in this country between the government and the states. But when can you imagine the states wanting to go to war with the federal government using armed force?

GERHART: I wouldn't imagine they ever would. What our founding fathers envisioned -- they never envisioned having a standing army. The Second Amendment was not about your right to shoot a burglar, protect your family. The Second Amendment was the right of the states to have a militia. What the founding fathers envisioned was all these state militias that basically kept the federal government in check just by their very existence.

MATTHEWS: Where do you get that history? Where is that history coming from? I guess I don't know that history.

GERHART: Go back to school then, because the history is there.

MATTHEWS: Tell me about the militias as an instrument to restrict how the Supreme Court rules on -- the Supreme Court rules in this country about what the federal government is allowed to do. What is a militia going to do with a Supreme Court, challenge the Supreme Court?

GERHART: No, sir. Did you realize the militia has been authorized by the Supreme Court. There's been a case on it already.

MATTHEWS: Sure. We're talking about the use of the -- let's not get into the lawyers game of shifting the marbles around here. Are militias, as you understand them, a proper tool to stand up to a federal decision approved by the Supreme Court? Do you believe a militia in Oklahoma should ever be used to fight the federal government? Is that your view?

GERHART: Oh, no, it should never be used to fight the federal government. That would be insanity. That's not the point. The point is if you have 30 or 40 states that have state militias, that would never happen to start with. The government will respect us.

MATTHEWS: Why not? Explain how that would work.

GERHART: Well, Chris, if you have 30 or 40 state militias that cannot be controlled by the federal government, that alone will keep the federal government from ever trying to overstep its bounds. If it ever decided to, the state militias couldn't do anything about it. That's real simple.

MATTHEWS: When we had a fight, the federal government had a fight in Little Rock to integrate the high school down there, they brought in federal troops. They nationalized the National Guard down there and put it at the service of the federal government. Why wouldn't the militia of any state be nationalized to put it to the service of the federal government, and used to serve the needs of the federal government? What would stop that from happening in your case in Oklahoma?

GERHART: Technically, they can't. What they can do and what they would do is draft the people in the State Guard, which is perfectly legitimate. But they cannot control the state militia by the state Constitution. In Oklahoma, we have three state militias. Every man in Oklahoma between the ages of 17 and 70 is a member of the state militia. That is our law.

Most states have similar laws. As far as your state guard, they disbanded it after the April 19th bombing, out of respect for our citizens, and it was probably a good decision for them to do so.

MATTHEWS: Name an issue that you can imagine in which a state militia in Oklahoma, based Oklahoma, would act to prevent the federal government from doing anything on health care, on education, on any issue. Where would he get a role in standing up or bluffing the federal government or using its strength just by being there to stop the federal government from doing something?

GERHART: Chris, where are you getting all of this? No one has ever mentioned that. As far as our group, we don't even have a position on whether or not the state militia is a good idea or bad idea.

MATTHEWS: OK.

GERHART: I'm here to basically represent what the other people are talking about. I told your producer we have no position on in. We know the people who do have a position on it. Their position is if it's under our Constitution, it's legal. Why not go ahead and re-enact it, just like having another highway department or something? That's all it is.

MATTHEWS: What did you mean when you said it's scary, it sure is, when you talked about having a militia down there in Oklahoma?

GERHART: Gee, Chris, I think everybody understands that if we ever got to the point where state militias felt they had to stand up against the federal government that would be a scary situation. That's one I don't want to live through and I don't want to see my kids living through that.

MATTHEWS: I can't follow you, sir. You're going on a couple points here. You're saying that a militia would play a constitutional role in standing up for the sovereignty of your state, but it would never actually be active in doing so. I don't get the point.

GERHART: Our founding fathers considered the militias crucial. If you read the Second Amendment, it's all about that. It's all about the need for a well-regulated militia. Again, we're not supposed to have a standing army. The founding fathers wanted that to be a counter-point.

But times have changed. Now we have a huge standing army. It's just symbolic. That's all it is.

(CROSS TALK)

MATTHEWS: You seem like you're suggesting there's a legitimate need, even if it isn't put into practice, a legitimate need to stand up to federal authority. You believe there is?

GERHART: I don't believe there is a legitimate need to do that. But there is a legitimate need to have a state guard, or else 22 of the states wouldn't have it, Chris.

MATTHEWS: Thank you for coming. I appreciate it. We're trying to get to the truth here. Thank you, Al Gerhart, from Oklahoma.