Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ron on December 13, 2020, 08:44:42 AM
-
Lets say there was widespread unrest and domestic violence and a President needed to "call up" the militia.
What would that look like and who actually would be called up?
All gun owners within a set age range are considered in the militia IIRC.
I think if a President called up the militia he would specifically call up those who have already served in the military and/or law enforcement and would ask the rest to stand down.
It only makes sense that they would be under direct control of active military officers.
Truth be told, in all my years buzzing around the gun "community" I never really gave much thought to what a call up would look like.
-
The National Guard would be first I’d think.
-
The National Guard would be first I’d think.
Absolutely
I'm just gaming out in my mind what it looks like if things really really go south and there is a need for even more "boots on the ground" than the NG can provide.
-
The National Guard would be first I’d think.
Aren't they commanded by the governor of each state?
-
Aren't they commanded by the governor of each state?
Pretty sure the president can call them up without the consent of said governors.
-
I thought that who called them up changed who had to pay for it. So if the president calls them up the the feds pay. If the governor then the state.
-
I thought that who called them up changed who had to pay for it. So if the president calls them up the the feds pay. If the governor then the state.
I have to admit I have no idea how NG are paid.
Are members of the NG paid only when they're called up?
Do they receive a flat pay every month called up or not?
Do they receive a base pay plus duty pay when called up?
-
Lets say there was widespread unrest and domestic violence and a President needed to "call up" the militia.
What would that look like and who actually would be called up?
All gun owners within a set age range are considered in the militia IIRC.
I think if a President called up the militia he would specifically call up those who have already served in the military and/or law enforcement and would ask the rest to stand down.
It only makes sense that they would be under direct control of active military officers.
Truth be told, in all my years buzzing around the gun "community" I never really gave much thought to what a call up would look like.
That's only one scenario in which the militia might act.
The militia might act to depose Congress or the President, in which case it would self-mobilize, or mobilize based upon a collaborative effort from several Governors of individual States.
Or, in the case of a State where the Governor does not support the mobilization of the militia to depose Federal offices though several other States are doing so, the militia of that State might opt to depose their Governor, in order to wrest control of local authority and then join the Federal effort once successful.
All of these are rather organic leadership environments. You might see County Sheriffs leading portions, or veterans, or NG officers. Maybe even rogue elements of active duty armed forces. You'd probably see a bifurcation in leadership with one part being political/charismatic, and the other part being logistical/tactical.
-
Pretty sure the president can call them up without the consent of said governors.
The Feds can call up the NG without the consent of the governors - IIRC, this was decided in 1990 (Perpich vs. DOD) in which Minnesota governor Rudy Perpich didn't want the MN NG to go somewhere in Central America for "training." From what was reported in the papers at the time, SCOTUS said essentially since the NG is funded by the Feds, they go where they're told by the Feds.
As for calling up the entire militia - which in principle can include nearly everyone - for anything other than a full-fledged Invasion USA scenario (BOTH "Red Dawn" movies were FICTION!!!) that wouldn't happen since I suspect a lot of "militia" members would not only not support, but would actively oppose whatever POTUS wanted them to do.
-
All gun owners within a set age range are considered in the militia IIRC.
Not all gun owners. All able-bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45, and all females citizens who are members of the National Guard.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
-
If I remember correctly, the operational order is:
1. Active duty
2. Reserve
2(a). National Guard
3. IRR (Individual Ready Reserve) - vets subject to recall
4. Draft and conscription
5. Anyone else
So yeah, the modern Minute Men are pretty far down the list. Like Hawkmoon said, it's gonna be a full invasion scenario before such a thing would happen.
-
3. IRR (Individual Ready Reserve) - vets subject to recall
So most vets aren't part of the citizen militia even after they are back in civilian life.
-
So most vets aren't part of the citizen militia even after they are back in civilian life.
There's a period of time during which a vet is subject to recall, which varies depending on the enlistment contract, the vet's MOS and skill set, and the needs of the military. When I got out as an 11A at O-3, I think I had a 5 year IRR commitment.
-
So most vets aren't part of the citizen militia even after they are back in civilian life.
They are if they are able-bodied and under the age of 45.
-
There's a period of time during which a vet is subject to recall, which varies depending on the enlistment contract, the vet's MOS and skill set, and the needs of the military. When I got out as an 11A at O-3, I think I had a 5 year IRR commitment.
When I ETSed ("Expiration of Term of Service") and was released from active duty and sent home from Vietnam as an E-5 in 1968, I was subject to potential recall for 4 years. But the Army wasn't doing stop loss back then. They had a draft, so they could replace an E-5 with an E-1 and save a few bucks.
-
Absolutely
I'm just gaming out in my mind what it looks like if things really really go south and there is a need for even more "boots on the ground" than the NG can provide.
Several states (mine included) have "state guards," which are what often show up when you Google "militia." The state guards are sort of like junior varsity National Guard. In my state they train with the National Guard but are not subject to federal call-up. Their primary function seems to be to supplement the NG in times of natural disaster, or to take the primary lead in natural disaster scenarios if the NG happens to be away on federal deployment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force
-
Several states (mine included) have "state guards," which are what often show up when you Google "militia." The state guards are sort of like junior varsity National Guard. In my state they train with the National Guard but are not subject to federal call-up. Their primary function seems to be to supplement the NG in times of natural disaster, or to take the primary lead in natural disaster scenarios if the NG happens to be away on federal deployment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force
(Thread drift). This has always made me laugh when people talk about "the militia" being the National Guard. The Militia as referred to in 2A and as existed in that historical context, was a true home guard, devoted to protecting the local community, and controlled at the local level. The National Guard, through my adult life, has been a Reserve Unit of the U.S. Army, subject to call up and deployment with Army Reserve and Regular Army units. Kind of hard to see it both ways, at least for me.
-
The militia as referred to in the 2A preceded the National Guard by over 100 years ...
-
(Thread drift). This has always made me laugh when people talk about "the militia" being the National Guard. The Militia as referred to in 2A and as existed in that historical context, was a true home guard, devoted to protecting the local community, and controlled at the local level. The National Guard, through my adult life, has been a Reserve Unit of the U.S. Army, subject to call up and deployment with Army Reserve and Regular Army units. Kind of hard to see it both ways, at least for me.
I've come to the same conclusion as well. I considered joining the national guard when I was younger, but that whole bit was very off-putting. I was more in interested in servicing the local community providing disaster relief and if necessary civil defense, but not so much getting sucked in fighting foreign wars. Isn't that what the Army is for? Ultimately, I was looking for something more along the lines of the German THW (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technisches_Hilfswerk).
-
I'm JUST past my IRR time. It will be a cold day in hell when I answer any call of my shithead governor.
And we're back to the old Chinese curse regarding interesting times.
The Militia is what it's described as, but what if we refuse? It's most likely an academic argument at this point, but here we are. My oath was to the Constitution, not whichever ahole was in power at the time.
Balkans here we come.
-
Balkans here we come.
No, more like the Granger movement in the 19th century, I'm not talking about farming, but how a group of like mined people got together and attempted to give the middle finger to both major parties. Also, like the Grangers, it will fail and the winners will be the establishment.
-
No, more like the Granger movement in the 19th century, I'm not talking about farming, but how a group of like mined people got together and attempted to give the middle finger to both major parties. Also, like the Grangers, it will fail and the winners will be the establishment.
I think you're overly optimistic.
Guess we'll see.
-
I think you're overly optimistic.
Guess we'll see.
If the Magadons don't go violent after tomorrow's electoral college counts, it's not going to happen. Like said earlier people are not going to do it, but hoping someone else does.
-
If the Magadons don't go violent after tomorrow's electoral college counts, it's not going to happen. Like said earlier people are not going to do it, but hoping someone else does.
Is Magadons like Mittens, Hitlery or Shrub ;)
-
Is Magadons like Mittens, Hitlery or Shrub ;)
Nope, made that term up. Doesn't describe a person, just a group of people. ;)
-
Aren't they commanded by the governor of each state?
Until ordered to Federal service by either Presidential order or act of Congress. The President can also Federalize the guard in a single state if that state is in defiance of Federal law or is unable to control civil disorder.
Probably the most famous incident of that type was in 1957 when Eisenhower Federalized the Arkansas National Guard.
Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus was using the guard to prevent integration of Little Rock's Central High School.
Eisenhower's action removed the guard from Faubus' control, allowing it to be ordered back to its armories, and contingents of the 101st Airborne protected the students from large mobs gathered at the school.
-
Except in such a scenario, coc seems like it's get a little....murky. And subject mainly to who tells who to go pound sand.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
-
The Uniform Militia Act of 1792 defined the militia as envisioned by the founders. It was comprised of the organized militia (those mustered to service) and the unorganized militia (those not mustered) comprising able bodied males aged 18 to 45.
Today the militia system has long fallen into disuse. It cannot be THE NATIONAL GUARD, as it didn't exist in 1792. I think Texas is one of the only states with a militia and it's purpose is much changed from what it was .... though I may be wrong about this.
Today, the militia consists of a few old white Christians who identify as white nationalists who hang out in the woods shooting empty (sometimes) beer cans off of tree branches and cussing out democrat politicians while reloading their 5.56mm. magazines.
[tinfoil] [popcorn] ..... :old:
-
The National Guard was started in Massachusetts in 1636. The Militia act of 1792 was definitely talking about the state guards that comprise the National Guard when it mentioned the "organized Militia."
-
The National Guard was started in Massachusetts in 1636. The Militia act of 1792 was definitely talking about the state guards that comprise the National Guard when it mentioned the "organized Militia."
:facepalm: I stand corrected. I had thought federal laws were changed just after 1900 that created the National Guard as we know it .... but apparently I mis-remembered .... something .... and now I don't even know where to go to find out where I went wrong.
In any case .... my point was .... beer drinking rednecks shooting cans off of tree branches aren't ....really militias. Unless you count them as the, er, ....unorganized part. =D
-
The Uniform Militia Act of 1792 defined the militia as envisioned by the founders. It was comprised of the organized militia (those mustered to service) and the unorganized militia (those not mustered) comprising able bodied males aged 18 to 45.
Today the militia system has long fallen into disuse. It cannot be THE NATIONAL GUARD, as it didn't exist in 1792. I think Texas is one of the only states with a militia and it's purpose is much changed from what it was .... though I may be wrong about this.
Today, the militia consists of a few old white Christians who identify as white nationalists who hang out in the woods shooting empty (sometimes) beer cans off of tree branches and cussing out democrat politicians while reloading their 5.56mm. magazines.
[tinfoil] [popcorn] ..... :old:
You are conflating and/or confusing the original Militia Acts (there were two) of 1792 with the Militia Act of 1903. It was the 1903 Militia Act that introduced the distinction between the organized militia (the National Guard) and the unorganized militia.
https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-sources-2/article/militia-act-of-1792/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
I posted this link before. A number of states (21, in fact) have state militias (typically called "State Guard"). My state has one, divided into four companies. They answer to the State Adjutant General, who also commands the state's National Guard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force#/media/File:State_Defense_Force_Map_December_2019.png
And, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the National Guard is considered to be the organized militia.
-
:facepalm: I stand corrected. I had thought federal laws were changed just after 1900 that created the National Guard as we know it .... but apparently I mis-remembered .... something .... and now I don't even know where to go to find out where I went wrong.
The National Guard was created by the Dirk Act of 1903, but the name "National Guard" was only a recommendation. The "National Guard" designation was made mandatory by the National Defense Act of 1916.
-
Oooookay..... Thanks.
But I still think the 1792 U. M. A. Distinguished organized and unorganized militia.....
:facepalm:
Never mind, really ..... I still have a hangover headache from the election tomfoolery we're going through ..... :old:
-
Never mind, really ..... I still have a hangover headache from the election tomfoolery we're going through ..... :old:
With you there, I think it's fitting that I've got what's hopefully not the Kung Flu on the most fitting of days. Would gladly trade for a hangover.
-
Oooookay..... Thanks.
But I still think the 1792 U. M. A. Distinguished organized and unorganized militia.....
I gave you the link ... and it (they, actually) didn't.
-
I gave you the link ... and it (they, actually) didn't.
Ok .... this is what I call "false memory syndrome." Stuff vaguely recalled, accurate in some sense but messed up or conflated in detail. =(
I hate growing old sometimes .... :mad: :old: