User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 3:34:18 PM EDT
[#1]
Dick act. Fitting.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 3:40:25 PM EDT
[#2]
even if there isn't anything that currently prevents the states from doing this. The Feds still have the option of taking all of the dod property back.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 5:37:17 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
I overheard some Senior ARNG Officers discuss a strategy whereby States may begin implementing a conscription (Draft) into their National Guard / State Defense Forces, so that states can be operating within a common framework for interoperability purposes and to enable rapid expansion of the National Guard / State Defense Force should the need arise. are they looking to conscript pure skins because they fear inky degradation in their ranks? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 6:15:30 PM EDT
[#4]
Where would they train their impressed militia? Not going to use federal facilities for that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 6:42:06 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where would they train their impressed militia? Not going to use federal facilities for that. Wonder what Montano knows... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 6:48:24 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where would they train their impressed militia? Not going to use federal facilities for that. State owned land/facilities....VMI here for starters. Lots of shut down prisons and their surrounding lands too. Most states don't lack state land/facilities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 6:52:32 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
State owned land/facilities....VMI here for starters. Lots of shut down prisons and their surrounding lands too. Most states don't lack state land/facilities. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Where would they train their impressed militia? Not going to use federal facilities for that. State owned land/facilities....VMI here for starters. Lots of shut down prisons and their surrounding lands too. Most states don't lack state land/facilities. Do they have cadres of drill instructors and instructors for the various MOSs? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 6:59:35 PM EDT
[#8]
NC already has the provision for state mobilization of the unorganized militia.
In a desperate situation where such a drastic action would be necessary for the very survival of the state and its people, why would you resist it? Would it be morally better to aid in the destruction of your home and the slaughter of your fellow citizens by refusing to aid in their defense? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 7:03:27 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In a desperate situation where such a drastic action would be necessary for the very survival of the state and its people, why would you resist it? Some would prefer to flee or allow others to pay the price for the rights they enjoy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 7:06:26 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do they have cadres of drill instructors and instructors for the various MOSs? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where would they train their impressed militia? Not going to use federal facilities for that. State owned land/facilities....VMI here for starters. Lots of shut down prisons and their surrounding lands too. Most states don't lack state land/facilities. Do they have cadres of drill instructors and instructors for the various MOSs? Meh, just as in the War of Northern Aggression Virginia found leaders on all levels to train their troops. My state is just chock full of .mil retirees. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 7:11:24 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do they have cadres of drill instructors and instructors for the various MOSs? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where would they train their impressed militia? Not going to use federal facilities for that. State owned land/facilities....VMI here for starters. Lots of shut down prisons and their surrounding lands too. Most states don't lack state land/facilities. Do they have cadres of drill instructors and instructors for the various MOSs? Actually. they do and have for a while now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 7:16:47 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wonder what Montano knows... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Where would they train their impressed militia? Not going to use federal facilities for that. Wonder what Montano knows... Is it possible that Walmart is closing down those stores to sell them to state defense/guard forces for use as logistics bases? They do have a pretty fine tuned distribution system already... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 7:16:55 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
NC already has the provision for state mobilization of the unorganized militia. In a desperate situation where such a drastic action would be necessary for the very survival of the state and its people, why would you resist it? Would it be morally better to aid in the destruction of your home and the slaughter of your fellow citizens by refusing to aid in their defense? In galaxies far, far away? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 7:19:32 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually. they do and have for a while now. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where would they train their impressed militia? Not going to use federal facilities for that. State owned land/facilities....VMI here for starters. Lots of shut down prisons and their surrounding lands too. Most states don't lack state land/facilities. Do they have cadres of drill instructors and instructors for the various MOSs? Actually. they do and have for a while now. What if this is an end run around national conscription? The states conscript citing a lack of federal support for state missions, then the fed nationalize the NG. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 7:20:19 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Meh, just as in the War of Northern Aggression Virginia found leaders on all levels to train their troops. My state is just chock full of .mil retirees. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where would they train their impressed militia? Not going to use federal facilities for that. State owned land/facilities....VMI here for starters. Lots of shut down prisons and their surrounding lands too. Most states don't lack state land/facilities. Do they have cadres of drill instructors and instructors for the various MOSs? Meh, just as in the War of Northern Aggression Virginia found leaders on all levels to train their troops. My state is just chock full of .mil retirees. As long as it's not you, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 7:21:33 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What if this is an end run around national conscription? The states conscript citing a lack of federal support for state missions, then the fed nationalize the NG. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where would they train their impressed militia? Not going to use federal facilities for that. State owned land/facilities....VMI here for starters. Lots of shut down prisons and their surrounding lands too. Most states don't lack state land/facilities. Do they have cadres of drill instructors and instructors for the various MOSs? Actually. they do and have for a while now. What if this is an end run around national conscription? The states conscript citing a lack of federal support for state missions, then the fed nationalize the NG. Don't care....I'm old. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 7:41:59 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Some would prefer to flee or allow others to pay the price for the rights they enjoy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In a desperate situation where such a drastic action would be necessary for the very survival of the state and its people, why would you resist it? Some would prefer to flee or allow others to pay the price for the rights they enjoy. Are you telling me I can conscript all the Yankees out of Florida? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 7:47:09 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What if this is an end run around national conscription? The states conscript citing a lack of federal support for state missions, then the fed nationalize the NG. Remember Obama's "Civilian National Security Force?"  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 7:58:25 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Remember Obama's "Civilian National Security Force?"
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What if this is an end run around national conscription? The states conscript citing a lack of federal support for state missions, then the fed nationalize the NG. Remember Obama's "Civilian National Security Force?"
What in the fuck was that ass clown getting at with that? I don't recall hearing about it when he said it, but I listened to the replay, and wtf. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 8:09:38 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What in the fuck was that ass clown getting at with that? I don't recall hearing about it when he said it, but I listened to the replay, and wtf. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: What if this is an end run around national conscription? The states conscript citing a lack of federal support for state missions, then the fed nationalize the NG. Remember Obama's "Civilian National Security Force?" What in the fuck was that ass clown getting at with that? I don't recall hearing about it when he said it, but I listened to the replay, and wtf. More importantly, who knows where he's gone with it since then and whether he's done so in the open? Was Fast and Furious just a limited thing? Was it just about cartels? How about the speed with which black LEO's took the side of the rioters in Ferguson and the speed with which they organized? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 8:14:24 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What if this is an end run around national conscription? The states conscript citing a lack of federal support for state missions, then the fed nationalize the NG. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where would they train their impressed militia? Not going to use federal facilities for that. State owned land/facilities....VMI here for starters. Lots of shut down prisons and their surrounding lands too. Most states don't lack state land/facilities. Do they have cadres of drill instructors and instructors for the various MOSs? Actually. they do and have for a while now. What if this is an end run around national conscription? The states conscript citing a lack of federal support for state missions, then the fed nationalize the NG. So is this a state force that can't be federalized, and would disband if they tried? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 8:15:13 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you telling me I can conscript all the Yankees out of Florida? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In a desperate situation where such a drastic action would be necessary for the very survival of the state and its people, why would you resist it? Some would prefer to flee or allow others to pay the price for the rights they enjoy. Are you telling me I can conscript all the Yankees out of Florida? By the looks of the I-66 this past week the Snowbirds are headed back to Yankeeland in their trailers/RVs in droves. Whole convoys of them. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 8:15:35 PM EDT
[#23]
I would oppose conscription with every tool at my disposal.
Regardless of the prevailing belief, the state does not own the people who live within its territory. What you propose is slavery. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 8:17:40 PM EDT
[#24]
Lol, how do you cnscript undocumented without a list.?
Intriguing antway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 8:20:47 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
are they looking to conscript pure skins because they fear inky degradation in their ranks? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I overheard some Senior ARNG Officers discuss a strategy whereby States may begin implementing a conscription (Draft) into their National Guard / State Defense Forces, so that states can be operating within a common framework for interoperability purposes and to enable rapid expansion of the National Guard / State Defense Force should the need arise. are they looking to conscript pure skins because they fear inky degradation in their ranks? Would be my guess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 8:22:38 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would oppose conscription with every tool at my disposal. Regardless of the prevailing belief, the state does not own the people who live within its territory. What you propose is slavery. Don't worry, as long as the government does it, it is ok. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 8:23:54 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I would oppose conscription with every tool at my disposal. Regardless of the prevailing belief, the state does not own the people who live within its territory. What you propose is slavery. So calling out the unorganized militia for the defense of hearth and home is slavery? Its okay for others to pay the price for your freedoms but you're too special. Got it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 8:26:09 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So calling out the unorganized militia for the defense of hearth and home is slavery? Its okay for others to pay the price for your freedoms but you're too special. Got it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I would oppose conscription with every tool at my disposal. Regardless of the prevailing belief, the state does not own the people who live within its territory. What you propose is slavery. So calling out the unorganized militia for the defense of hearth and home is slavery? Its okay for others to pay the price for your freedoms but you're too special. Got it. That's not even close to what he said. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 8:33:15 PM EDT
[#29]
Sounds like the Volkssturm. Or the Opolchenye deployed by Stalin before Moscow.
Probably have the same chances for survival. "Here, take this clapped out WASR and ten rounds and hope for the best." |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 8:37:37 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would oppose conscription with every tool at my disposal. Regardless of the prevailing belief, the state does not own the people who live within its territory. What you propose is slavery. I came here to post this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 8:44:09 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do they have cadres of drill instructors and instructors for the various MOSs? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where would they train their impressed militia? Not going to use federal facilities for that. State owned land/facilities....VMI here for starters. Lots of shut down prisons and their surrounding lands too. Most states don't lack state land/facilities. Do they have cadres of drill instructors and instructors for the various MOSs? In the Nasty Girls operating under Title 32 money? Sure they do. You don't magically get knowledge when you transfer to Title 10 funding. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 8:49:11 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would oppose conscription with every tool at my disposal. Regardless of the prevailing belief, the state does not own the people who live within its territory. What you propose is slavery. Hey sport, I'm not proposing anything. I am summarizing a conversation I overheard a few Guard Officers while here at drill this weekend. I'm USAR (Federal) and I already know Conscription is legal at the Federal level, it just intrigued me enough that there is talk of it at the State level for State Militias, so I went and Investigated the Dick Act, the Militia Act of 1920, Title 39 and can see nothing that would also prohibit it at the State level. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 10:27:54 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hey sport, I'm not proposing anything. I am summarizing a conversation I overheard a few Guard Officers while here at drill this weekend. I'm USAR (Federal) and I already know Conscription is legal at the Federal level, it just intrigued me enough that there is talk of it at the State level for State Militias, so I went and Investigated the Dick Act, the Militia Act of 1920, Title 39 and can see nothing that would also prohibit it at the State level. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I would oppose conscription with every tool at my disposal. Regardless of the prevailing belief, the state does not own the people who live within its territory. What you propose is slavery. Hey sport, I'm not proposing anything. I am summarizing a conversation I overheard a few Guard Officers while here at drill this weekend. I'm USAR (Federal) and I already know Conscription is legal at the Federal level, it just intrigued me enough that there is talk of it at the State level for State Militias, so I went and Investigated the Dick Act, the Militia Act of 1920, Title 39 and can see nothing that would also prohibit it at the State level. My apologies, I didn't mean to say that you, personally, advocated the idea. For what it's worth, Virginia has a voluntary state guard that sounds like it would fall under the legal guidelines you're talking about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 10:32:06 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So calling out the unorganized militia for the defense of hearth and home is slavery? Its okay for others to pay the price for your freedoms but you're too special. Got it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I would oppose conscription with every tool at my disposal. Regardless of the prevailing belief, the state does not own the people who live within its territory. What you propose is slavery. So calling out the unorganized militia for the defense of hearth and home is slavery? Its okay for others to pay the price for your freedoms but you're too special. Got it. You either don't understand what I'm saying, or you're being purposefully obtuse. I would join in the defense of Virginia or of the United States in a heartbeat were it actually necessary. If Virginia started sending out draft cards and forming an involuntary state militia, I would do everything in my power to stop it from happening. Political differences aside, such an act would be a direct claim on people's lives. That is intolerable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 12:43:42 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You either don't understand what I'm saying, or you're being purposefully obtuse. I would join in the defense of Virginia or of the United States in a heartbeat were it actually necessary. If Virginia started sending out draft cards and forming an involuntary state militia, I would do everything in my power to stop it from happening. Political differences aside, such an act would be a direct claim on people's lives. That is intolerable. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I would oppose conscription with every tool at my disposal. Regardless of the prevailing belief, the state does not own the people who live within its territory. What you propose is slavery. So calling out the unorganized militia for the defense of hearth and home is slavery? Its okay for others to pay the price for your freedoms but you're too special. Got it. You either don't understand what I'm saying, or you're being purposefully obtuse. I would join in the defense of Virginia or of the United States in a heartbeat were it actually necessary. If Virginia started sending out draft cards and forming an involuntary state militia, I would do everything in my power to stop it from happening. Political differences aside, such an act would be a direct claim on people's lives. That is intolerable. Even if doing so helps the people who the draft is being used to fight against? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 1:21:15 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where would they train their impressed militia? Not going to use federal facilities for that. What does it really take facilities wise to train motorized infantry? Staff work would be the long pole in the tent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 1:25:16 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even if doing so helps the people who the draft is being used to fight against? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would oppose conscription with every tool at my disposal. Regardless of the prevailing belief, the state does not own the people who live within its territory. What you propose is slavery. So calling out the unorganized militia for the defense of hearth and home is slavery? Its okay for others to pay the price for your freedoms but you're too special. Got it. You either don't understand what I'm saying, or you're being purposefully obtuse. I would join in the defense of Virginia or of the United States in a heartbeat were it actually necessary. If Virginia started sending out draft cards and forming an involuntary state militia, I would do everything in my power to stop it from happening. Political differences aside, such an act would be a direct claim on people's lives. That is intolerable. Even if doing so helps the people who the draft is being used to fight against? The libertarian anti-draft stance makes less sense than liberal abortion penumbra/privacy. It stems from the same well spring, however. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 1:48:23 AM EDT
[#38]
Nevada has this statute.
NRS 475.110 Able-bodied males subject to fire-fighting duty; penalty for refusal; compensation and benefits.
1. All sheriffs, their deputies, firewardens or other peace officers or any national forest officer may call upon able-bodied male persons within the State of Nevada who are between the ages of 16 years and 50 years for assistance in extinguishing fires in timber or in brush. 2. Persons who refuse to obey the summons or who refuse to assist in fighting fire for the period stated in subsection 3, unless they present sufficient reasons, are guilty of a misdemeanor. 3. No male person may be required to fight fires a total of more than 5 days during any 1 year. 4. The board of county commissioners may fix the amount of compensation to be paid to male persons drafted to fight fires as provided in this section, and the sums so fixed must be allowed and paid as other claims against the county are paid. 5. For the purpose of obtaining the benefits of the Nevada Industrial Insurance Act, male persons drafted to fight fires must be considered employees of the county demanding their services, and they are entitled to receive for disability incurred by reason thereof the benefits under the Nevada Industrial Insurance Act. The county shall report and pay premiums to a private carrier authorized to provide industrial insurance in this State for persons so engaged. [1:45:1927; NCL § 1982] + [Part 2:45:1927; NCL § 1983]—(NRS A 1967, 590; 1981, 1528; 1995, 2046; 1999, 1826) |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 1:58:08 AM EDT
[#39]
So that's how they will enforce the safe act
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 2:42:50 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even if doing so helps the people who the draft is being used to fight against? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would oppose conscription with every tool at my disposal. Regardless of the prevailing belief, the state does not own the people who live within its territory. What you propose is slavery. So calling out the unorganized militia for the defense of hearth and home is slavery? Its okay for others to pay the price for your freedoms but you're too special. Got it. You either don't understand what I'm saying, or you're being purposefully obtuse. I would join in the defense of Virginia or of the United States in a heartbeat were it actually necessary. If Virginia started sending out draft cards and forming an involuntary state militia, I would do everything in my power to stop it from happening. Political differences aside, such an act would be a direct claim on people's lives. That is intolerable. Even if doing so helps the people who the draft is being used to fight against? Not enough information to say - there is always a greater evil. I can't imagine a realistic circumstance where a US state instituted a draft to raise a state militia to fight a greater evil, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. That said, if the enemy were so terrible as to justify instituting a draft, a draft wouldn't be necessary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 2:44:51 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So that's how they will enforce the safe act Oh, they've got cops for that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 2:49:23 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: I overheard some Senior ARNG Officers discuss a strategy whereby States may begin implementing a conscription (Draft) into their National Guard / State Defense Forces, so that states can be operating within a common framework for interoperability purposes and to enable rapid expansion of the National Guard / State Defense Force should the need arise. Based on my knowledge of the Dick Act, US Constitution, and the Constitution of the State of Montana (which I know best) I see nothing that prevents the States from doing so, but I was wondering if other States Constitutions might have grounds to resist based on their Constitutions, or if the Federal government can prevent them from doing so, legally or by threatening cash flow into the state? Since the State funds State Defense Forces and they are not subject to Federal call-up, it would provide a pool to respond to various emergencies.
The militia of the state of Washington shall consist of all able bodied citizens of the United States and all other able bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, residing within this state, who shall be more than eighteen years of age, and shall include all persons who are members of the national guard and the state guard, and said militia shall be divided into two classes, the organized militia and the unorganized militia....
In event of, or imminent danger of, war, insurrection, rebellion, invasion, tumult, riot, resistance to law or process or breach of the peace, if the governor shall have ordered into active service all of the available forces of the organized militia of Washington and shall consider them insufficient in number to properly accomplish the purpose, he or she may then in addition order out the unorganized militia or such portion thereof as he may deem necessary, and cause them to perform such military duty as the circumstances may require. [1989 c 19 § 8; 1943 c 130 § 9; Rem. Supp. 1943 § 8603-9. Prior: 1917 c 107 § 9; 1909 c 134 § 17; 1903 c 155 § 15; 1895 c 108 § 112.] My state's governor may call up the state's unorganized militia, as codified in WA state law, per http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=38.04.030 and http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=38.08.050 ) However, he is only responsible for training and equipping the organized militia, as evidenced by http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=38.20.050 "Under the direction of the governor, the adjutant general shall, at the expense and in the name of the state, buy or lease, establish, equip, maintain and control such small arms ranges and issue such ammunition, transportation and supplies as may be necessary to provide each unit of the organized militia of Washington with adequate means and opportunity for thorough instruction in small arms”. Even if the state here had the means to arm every 18 year and older able bodied citizen that could possibly be called up, it would be useless to do so without them (us) receiving adequate training, which won’t be possible under the exigent circumstances that would require a call-up of our unorganized militia. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 3:00:02 AM EDT
[#43]
Anybody in the NG has to also enter the Federal government's reserve forces. I think the feds could simply refuse to accept them.
The SDF or another militia not affiliated with the feds should be good to go. Most people are already members, they're just not required to perform any service. There's a long history in the 18th and 19th century of requiring militia service, with exemptions for religious objectors. In fact I think if DC's efforts to impose gun control got really serious that a red state like Wyoming could proclaim all non-felons to be militia members, announce a standard militia sidearm (1911!) and rifle (AR-15, or if you really want to get sporty, an M-16) and announce that any militia member can buy a standard militia weapon. Militia clauses trump interstate commerce clause the feds rely on for the ATF, so sorry. If the 2nd really only prevents disarming state militias, well, the feds refusing to allow the state to arm its militia fits the bill. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 4:45:45 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hey sport, I'm not proposing anything. I am summarizing a conversation I overheard a few Guard Officers while here at drill this weekend. I'm USAR (Federal) and I already know Conscription is legal at the Federal level, it just intrigued me enough that there is talk of it at the State level for State Militias, so I went and Investigated the Dick Act, the Militia Act of 1920, Title 39 and can see nothing that would also prohibit it at the State level. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I would oppose conscription with every tool at my disposal. Regardless of the prevailing belief, the state does not own the people who live within its territory. What you propose is slavery. Hey sport, I'm not proposing anything. I am summarizing a conversation I overheard a few Guard Officers while here at drill this weekend. I'm USAR (Federal) and I already know Conscription is legal at the Federal level, it just intrigued me enough that there is talk of it at the State level for State Militias, so I went and Investigated the Dick Act, the Militia Act of 1920, Title 39 and can see nothing that would also prohibit it at the State level. Why would a state want to do this, and what resources do they have to supply a body of conscripts. It's hard to imagine that a state, especially a little one like Montana, would have the wherewithal to achieve all that much, especially when the Feds could achieve so much more without raising a sweat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 5:13:57 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
even if there isn't anything that currently prevents the states from doing this. The Feds still have the option of taking all of the dod property back. Of course, it's not like the guard isn't 92% federally funded anyway. No state is going to buy a billion dollars worth of aircraft to play weekend warrior with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 6:30:11 AM EDT
[#46]
I think one issue here in VA would be the number of guys that would refuse regular infantry roles claiming to be snipers. They would even bring their own deer rifle and tree stand to the party.
As others have mentioned VA does not need conscription. All able bodied males at least sixteen years of age and, except as provided, not more than fifty-five years of age are already members of the unorganized militia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 7:44:45 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What if this is an end run around national conscription? The states conscript citing a lack of federal support for state missions, then the fed nationalize the NG. That would make sense, and explains the push for a common framework all states would have to adopt. Throw into that the history of the Whitehouse browbeating states into doing what they're told by threatening to withdraw funding/whatever and it's a fairly obvious powergrab. What's really interesting is that by making the control mechanism a matter of politics/money as opposed to the current mechanism via the NGB, the Whitehouse can sidestep the Pentagon completely and directly influence the Governors to take all those pesky internal enforcement actions that the regular army can't or won't do, while still putting their hands up and saying "Hey, don't blame us, we didn't force them to do it, they decided all on their own". This is almost certainly going to be the method used for the inevitable confiscation. And to be honest, who would really want to trust the individual states to have the power to call up their own personal little armies? Who knows what sort of weird half-assed shit they'd get up to? It's probably the wisest and safest choice to make sure this is all under much tighter federal control. There's such a thing as "too much freedom". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 7:54:42 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In fact I think if DC's efforts to impose gun control got really serious that a red state like Wyoming could proclaim all non-felons to be militia members, announce a standard militia sidearm (1911!) and rifle (AR-15, or if you really want to get sporty, an M-16) and announce that any militia member can buy a standard militia weapon. Militia clauses trump interstate commerce clause the feds rely on for the ATF, so sorry. If the 2nd really only prevents disarming state militias, well, the feds refusing to allow the state to arm its militia fits the bill. Nope. The key words here are "common framework". The "common framework" would be probably managed from a centralised (federal) point. States would probably be free to choose whether or not to implement it... while the government would be free to pull any federal funding for projects from any states that make "the wrong choice". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 8:00:27 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In the Nasty Girls operating under Title 32 money? Sure they do. You don't magically get knowledge when you transfer to Title 10 funding. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where would they train their impressed militia? Not going to use federal facilities for that. State owned land/facilities....VMI here for starters. Lots of shut down prisons and their surrounding lands too. Most states don't lack state land/facilities. Do they have cadres of drill instructors and instructors for the various MOSs? In the Nasty Girls operating under Title 32 money? Sure they do. You don't magically get knowledge when you transfer to Title 10 funding. My point was recreating a basic training/MOS school construct 50 times is much less efficient than doing it once. So I didn't know if each state had enough cadre to actually execute a basic training/MOS school. My guess is they'd have to pick and choose MOSs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2015 8:11:10 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
I overheard some Senior ARNG Officers discuss a strategy whereby States may begin implementing a conscription (Draft) into their National Guard / State Defense Forces, so that states can be operating within a common framework for interoperability purposes and to enable rapid expansion of the National Guard / State Defense Force should the need arise. Based on my knowledge of the Dick Act, US Constitution, and the Constitution of the State of Montana (which I know best) I see nothing that prevents the States from doing so, but I was wondering if other States Constitutions might have grounds to resist based on their Constitutions, or if the Federal government can prevent them from doing so, legally or by threatening cash flow into the state? Since the State funds State Defense Forces and they are not subject to Federal call-up, it would provide a pool to respond to various emergencies. At first I just rolled my eyes, but then I thought about this from the legal perspective and realized it was just another great example General Officer myopia. I am guess there is no legal impediment to doing it, but of course just because there is no legal impediment doesn't mean one can make it work. So if you assume there is no legal impediment, and you also assume there is no problem with the training either locally or using Federal facilities. What happens with actual manning? Hypothetical - young man is turning 18 and wants to go to college out of state. Can the state make him stay and/or return to the state on mobilization? The answer to that question is absolutely not. Might this cause a larger number of young people to leave the state. Probably. Might this cause other people to reconsider moving to the state? Absolutely. And of course you could not conscript federal employees, etc. The last thing this country needs is something that limits labor mobility. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
