My Proposal for a "Well-Regulated Militia"

[xd ED]

There are silent black helicopters circling over my house. .......

It's the blimps you got to watch out for, in case one of them "breaks loose"

[Rip Van Winkle]

Time to close this thread before we state getting visits from the ******** in the black vans.

Too late.

[perotter]

Militia's have a positive image in this state? ... Dream on!

What exactly are you guys looking for? You pooh pooh the thought of joining the NG, do you really think any state run body would be set up or run any differently?
ETA: if you think a state run militia can't be federalized, I suggest you read Section 2 Article 2 of the Constitution.

You guys could set up or join someone's private militia, but prepare for the annul probing you'll get from DHS no matter how innocent or honorable your intentions are.

Lastly, for those interested. Colonel Eddie was the leader of the "Minnesota Militia", who probably realistically had no more than 5 or 10 members. He was the epitome of the stereotypical dirtbag antisocial survivalist, and the news media would run to interview him whenever they wanted to reinforce a negative stereotype of all gun owners.

I doubt Minnesota will be that last state to do it, but it is unlikely to be the next one to do it either. About 22 states currently have them the DOD is pushing harder for states to have them.

Because a state defense force has a different purpose than the National Guard, it would be run differently. Just like the 22 current ones are. One more time. The NG isn't a militia and the Supreme Court would have to over turn it's 1980's decision Pervich vs DOD.

As far as a state defense force being federalized, under current federal law they can't be by 32 U.S. Code 109 (c):

(c) In addition to its National Guard, if any, a State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands may, as provided by its laws, organize and maintain defense forces. A defense force established under this section may be used within the jurisdiction concerned, as its chief executive (or commanding general in the case of the District of Columbia) considers necessary, but it may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces.

This law would have to be changed to do that.

As far being worried about being a member of non-state group and fearing the DHS, fearing one's own government is called tyranny. Personally I don't think the government is tyranny, but how you feel about that is up to you.

[perotter]

Also as far as getting one in Minnesota sooner rather than latter, Gov. Dayton was out in Washington a couple months ago about the National Guard. He said that the new reduction in the size of the National Guard would make it to small to be able to handle state emergencies.

Taking what he said at face value, the only 2 things the state can do is ignore the problem or reactivate the Minnesota State Guard.

[Bearcatrp]

Taking what he said at face value, the only 2 things the state can do is ignore the problem or reactivate the Minnesota State Guard.

They will ignore it until it bites them in the face, as usual.

[Lumpy]

Regarding the National Guard vs. State Guards, and which is or is not "the Militia" is a little convoluted:

The National Guard is in theory the descendant of the old State militias: it's what was called a "select" militia back in colonial days, and referred to in the 1903 Militia Act (a.k.a. the Dick Act) as the "organized" militia, with everyone else as the "unorganized" militia. What the 1903 Militia Act and subsequent federal legislation did was to say that anyone who volunteers for National Guard duty is simultaneously volunteering to join the US Army Reserve; hence the "National" part. This falls under the joint state/federal authority over the militia given in the Constitution.

So what is the State Guard a.k.a. the State Defense Forces? Article One Section Ten Clause Three of the Constitution (the "Compact Clause") forbids the states from having "troops"- that is, standing professional state armies- "without the consent of Congress". That consent was given by federal legislation 32 U.S.C. § 109. In other words, the State Defense Forces are theoretically the state equivalent of independent armies. They exist at the federal sufferance, and such "consent of Congress" could at any time be withdrawn by appropriate legislation.

So paradoxically, we have a "militia" which is effectively a national Army, and state troops that are effectively a militia.

[perotter]

Regarding the National Guard vs. State Guards, and which is or is not "the Militia" is a little convoluted:

The National Guard is in theory the descendant of the old State militias: it's what was called a "select" militia back in colonial days, and referred to in the 1903 Militia Act (a.k.a. the Dick Act) as the "organized" militia, with everyone else as the "unorganized" militia. What the 1903 Militia Act and subsequent federal legislation did was to say that anyone who volunteers for National Guard duty is simultaneously volunteering to join the US Army Reserve; hence the "National" part. This falls under the joint state/federal authority over the militia given in the Constitution.

So what is the State Guard a.k.a. the State Defense Forces? Article One Section Ten Clause Three of the Constitution (the "Compact Clause") forbids the states from having "troops"- that is, standing professional state armies- "without the consent of Congress". That consent was given by federal legislation 32 U.S.C. § 109. In other words, the State Defense Forces are theoretically the state equivalent of independent armies. They exist at the federal sufferance, and such "consent of Congress" could at any time be withdrawn by appropriate legislation.

So paradoxically, we have a "militia" which is effectively a national Army, and state troops that are effectively a militia.

You are correct about the federal government being able to get rid of state defense forces. What the federal government can't do is get rid of a state militia that isn't formed under 32 U.S.C 109. This was stated in Houston vs Moore in about 1821(with the reason being that state militias predate the US government) and has also been stated in latter Supreme Court decisions.

That said. The advantage of having a state defense force vs a state militia is that more help can be obtained from the DOD for a SDF than for a state militia. For an example the US Army is very willing to allow members of a SDF to go thru regular Army basic training, but possibly not those from a state militia.

Both a SDF and a militia can be self armed and as far as I know all states that currently have an armed SDF do it that way.

[Lumpy]

I'm a little unclear about the significance of Houston v. Moore; as far as I can tell, it was a dispute over whether a state, as opposed to the federal government, could levee a fine against someone for failing to show up for federal militia duty. I fail to see how any proposed formal revival of the state militias would not fall under the federal authority that's already given us the National Guard.

In any case, while this is all very well I think it's getting a bit beyond the scope of my original post. Two hundred-plus years of history saw a steady diminishment of the effective right of people as individuals to own and carry weapons, only recently reversed by Shall Issue carry laws, the defeat for now of various gun and ammo bans, and two Supreme Court decisions that so far have had little effect other than to say that carry cannot be flatly banned. We've had our fill of debates over to what extent the government should exercise control over the armed populace, since given a choice government officials would prefer that no one other than police and soldiers have guns at all. The reason I mentioned the militia at all in the original post is that it would give an indisputable legal framework for the proposed training duty.

Given the cool reception the idea got, I'd as soon drop the whole subject.

[perotter]

From Houston vs Moore:

"The power of the States over the militia is not taken away; it existed in them before the establishment of the constitution, and there being no negative clause prohibiting its exercise by them, it still resides in the States, so far as an exercise of it by them is not absolutely repugnant to the authority of the Union. Before the militia are actually employed in the service of the United States, Congress has only a power concurrent with that of the States, to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining them."