How our NFA rights were stolen from us

[Al Norris]

Quick History Lesson

Now, while the Guard, in this case, the Army National Guard, does indeed trace it's history back to the Mass. Bay Colony in 1636 (182nd Infantry Regiment, 101st Engineer Battalion and 181st Infantry Regiment of the Massachusetts Army National Guard are directly descended from Massachusetts Bay Colony regiments formed over 370 years ago), it was not what we today would consider the Guard. It was at that time a citizen-militia of the kind and type exemplified by the founders in the Federalists Papers.

However....

Shortly before the civil war, 2nd Battalion, 11th New York Artillery renamed itself as the "National Guard" in honor of the Marquis de Lafayette (who commanded the "Garde Nationale de Paris" in the early days of the French Revolution). New York renamed its entire militia as the New York National Guard shortly after the outbreak of the civil war.

After the civil war, several States began to follow the lead of New York in renaming their militia.

It wasn't until 1903 that the title, "National Guard," was used by the federal government when many of the States Militias were federalized. In 1916, all State militias were federalized as the National Guard. The Guard is therefore a federally created select militia.

Finally, in 1990, the State Governors lost all control of "their" Guard in Perpich v. Dept of Defense, 496 U.S. 334. The writing was on the wall, long before this, however.

I could go on, for some length, but Tennessee the argument is not whether the militia is useful or its time is past, the argument is that the National Guard is not the citizen-militia of the States. Regardless of what the Supremes have said (obiter dicta), the history is explicit.

None of the above is meant to detract from what the Guard is or does. It is merely to set the documented and historical record straight.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

A slightly different view

Al, I won't refute your history but might but a different nuance to it.

Responding to calls for increases in the size of the Regular Army, Guard (read National Guard Association, a lobbying group) advocates argued that a large standing army was inconsistent with traditional American political beliefs. Guardsmen believed that a properly trained, equipped and manned National Guard could provide the country with an organized reserve to augment the Regular Army during national emergencies.

The Dick Act of 1903 temporarily settled the issue by transforming all state militia units into the organized regiments and companies of the National Guard. In simplest terms, Guard units received increased funding and equipment, and in return, they were to conform to federal standards for training and organization.

The law recognized two classes of militia: the Organized Militia (National Guard) under federal-state control and the Unorganized Militia, the pool of 18-to-45-year-old males available for conscription. The Dick Act required Guardsmen to attend 24 drill periods per year and 5 days of summer camp. For the first time, Guardsmen received pay for summer camp but not for drill periods.-Century of Change, Century of Contribution: A Militia Nation Comes of Age

Then there was WWI

The National Defense Act of 1916 was an important watershed in National Guard history. The act specifically designated the National Guard as the Army's primary reserve while authorizing an expanded Regular Army and Army Reserve. There would no longer be state militias; henceforth, all state units would be designated as National Guard. ibid

You see, people ask where did the militia go? The states sold it to the Feds because: it was too expensive, modern warfare made it obsolete, and NOBODY wanted to be in it. It was a PITA and the states got rid of it and that is why even though they could establish one today they won't for the same reason they got rid of it in the first place.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Finally, in 1990, the State Governors lost all control of "their" Guard in Perpich v. Dept of Defense, 496 U.S. 334. The writing was on the wall, long before this, however.

Actually, the states NEVER had total control over their militias as Article One Section Eight gave Congress the power to call it forth. This power superceded that State Control and that was unprecedended and scared the anti-federalists so the militia clause of the 2A gave the states the power to arm their militias in case the Fed didn't.

the argument is that the National Guard is not the citizen-militia of the States.

I would argue that the NG replaced the state militias (Which is what the COTUS refers to in the 2A and Article One) and the states as of today have not "backfilled" those militias unless you consider these tepid "State Defense Forces" to be such and I do not.

 

[BlueTrain]

Well, I think a good case can still be made that the states all need their own military force, in spite of the fact that the national guard is subject to federal call up. In fact, mostly because of that fact, since the guard is used so much for local emergencies, there being no equivalent organization that can be used instead. When the guard is deployed, the state is kind of left high and dry when there's a flood or something.

But, it seems I'm too old to qualify in the first place. My time in the guard was about 35 years ago (the D.C. National Guard), about 7 years after I got out of the army.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Well, it think a good case can still be made that the states all need their own military force

Good point. One of the "unitended consequences" I have noticed is that due to the lack of the guard police departments are becoming more "militarized" and I am not sure that is a good thing. But yes, the capability is still required sometimes.

 

[BlueTrain]

While I agree that the police have become more militarized, I don't think the reasons have anything to do with the national guard, and besides, that is another topic altogether. Most states already have state police that function as, well, a state police force and they have always been fairly militaristic in form and fashion, pretty much the same as the RCMP and the Carabinieri in Italy, only there is no equivalent uniformed national police in the U.S. that function the same as those other bodies.

 

[ISC]

Talk about thread drift... Wow!

 

[Al Norris]

Yup. Even I got carried away... After I made it clear to get back on topic.

ISC, do you want the thread closed for thread drift? Your call.

 

[RDak]

Well RDak as you know I have claimed all along that there is no more militia and it is a dead letter.

I understand TG.

 

[ISC]

I don't mind the drift, it brought us to the cusp of the ultimate safeguard from abusive actions by our government: an armed citizen militia.

I understand that discussing the ultimate check and balence against government abuse is a forbidden subject here. I was hoping we could focus more on the measures that could be taken short of armed insurrection. When legal action ceases to be an effective option due to corruption or politicized judges the options seem to be civil disobedience (as in Ghandi and Martin Luther King) or violent destruction (as in WATTs and Rodney King)

I have to wonder which path is more productive in the world today. I also wonder if civil disobedience is even an option when the media is dominated by an oligarchy that is antithetical to the private ownership of firearms. This is further complicated when we are facing the very real possibility of censorship of alternative media sources by regulation and taxing of the internet and reinstitution of "The Fairness Doctrine".

I am in the position of many of the other military and law enforcement members here. We'll have to decide on a personal basis where we draw the line and refuse to follow orders and enforce unconstitutional laws.

 

[Al Norris]

I understand that discussing the ultimate check and balence against government abuse is a forbidden subject here.

Just a point of order.

Such discussions are not so much as forbidden, as they are discouraged. Why, you might ask? Because all too often, someone will begin foaming at the mouth (so to speak) and actually call for insurrection. <-- That is what is forbidden.

I tend to keep in mind, what Judge Alex Kozinski wrote in his dissent to Silveira:

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed; where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. "​

We are not even close to those criteria. It's unfortunate, some do not really think before they hit the "Submit" button.

 

[maestro pistolero]

I have always thought that as long as we still have a vote, we have no business taking up arms against the government. If we are unhappy with our government, a vote can change it.

True tyranny doesn't allow itself to be voted out of power. The present enemies to liberty and democracy is apathy and ignorance.

 

[ISC]

At what point to we recognize that our votes have become meaningless due to corruption? The Nazis and Soviets both had elections, but they were meaningless due to state control of the media and intimidation or outright bans of other parties.

We aren't there yet, thank God. But if racist groups are allowed to display weapons at polling places and openly advocate violence in the streets isn't that the direction we're headed?

When a grassroots political party is labeled as racist because they advocate enforcing the law and they are subsequently targeted for investigations and legal harrassment, that is a bad sign.

 

[BlueTrain]

Sounds like some people just don't like the way the election turned out. That's happened before, and what people did had serious consequences. What law is it that you are referring to. Ones that say you can be stopped on the street and demand that you show your papers?

 

[ADB]

At what point to we recognize that our votes have become meaningless due to corruption? The Nazis and Soviets both had elections, but they were meaningless due to state control of the media and intimidation or outright bans of other parties.

We aren't there yet, thank God. But if racist groups are allowed to display weapons at polling places and openly advocate violence in the streets isn't that the direction we're headed?

You need to watch less Glenn Beck. It's rotting your brain.

 

[maestro pistolero]

You need to watch less Glenn Beck. It's rotting your brain.

Take it easy there, cowboy. How about contributing to the discussion instead of offering ad-hoc insults?

If anyone isn't seriously disturbed by this administration's indefensible tolerance for one of the most abhorrent enemies of democracy, i.e.voter intimidation by threat of violence, I would suggest perhaps a little Glen Beck may be just what the doctor ordered. And I'm not even a fan.

 

[alloy]

We'll have to decide on a personal basis where we draw the line and refuse to follow orders and enforce unconstitutional laws.

Is leaving that decision as a personal one, an admission that some may have already had their drawn lines....crossed...since you say that the line is a moving target? Seems a dangerous standard which could only lead to a spontaneous combustion within the uniformed services and general confusion among the population in the unlikely event of a crisis.

 

[ISC]

OK, I don't see why there was any cause for any attacks.

I was trying to show how the civil rights movement was an outgrowth of the discriminatory laws against blacks and how the sitting around quietly and voting for sympathetic politicians wasn't enough to end those violation of an entire group's civil rights.

In the 50's and 60's there was blatant and open intimidation against blacks who tried to vote or register to vote. Selma and Montgomery was about more than an old woman who was too tired stand on a bus.

40 years later we have the anti gun political machine in Chicago flaunting their corruption (Blagoivich, Daley, etc). ACORN has been proven to have registered thousands of fictitious voters and bussing them into precincts they don't live in so they could vote (more than one time IMO). Mn had Norm Coleman's 4000 vote lead turn into a 312 vote loss where 350 felons were known by the state to have voted and where in the recount the local election officials made photocopies of original ballots and then mixed them in with the originals, resulting in several precincts having more votes cast than there were registered voters.

Anti gun Massachusetts and other gun unfriendly states are attempting to usurp the constitution by bypassing the electoral college. That would allow states that would elect anti gun politicians to use the vote rigging common to their states (in some of these places it's very common for people to continue voting for years after they die) to drown out the honest votes.

If things continue to go down this path, I don't think it's so unrealistic to suspect that anti 2nd amendment forces could steal more elections. If that happens what are our options?

Is a million gun owners march going to meet the same results that the bonus army did in the 30's? If you don't know what I mean by that you are either woefully ignorant of our history or a victim of revisionist history.

Can we stage successfull rallies if all but one news station ignores it like they did the tea party?

What should we do the next time a Hughes type amendment is inserted into a bill requiring universal registration or a federal license to own more than 10 guns and 1000 rounds of ammo? Both of those amendments have been proposed and will probably come up again.

 

[alloy]

OK, I don't see why there was any cause for any attacks.

If that is for me...my post was no attack, it was a question, one you seem to already be pondering, and one that could be easily answered yes or no. Don't take it personal....just chit-chat on a forum.

 

[ISC]

You need to watch less Glenn Beck. It's rotting your brain

That was the insult I was talking about.

Alloy, you've make a good point, and many soldiers and police have already decided that the line was too close and left the service or found different careers.

At the start of the Civil War there was a scene that played out at West Point where all the cadets with Southern sympathies left the academy to return to their states to fight for the Confederacy. What a tragic moment that must have been to experience. I pray that we never have to live through that sort of upheaval again. Was the Civil War neccesary? I don't think so, but I think that it occurred because the system was broken and too many people thought that their own state's interests were more important than figuring out a peaceful resolution within the guidelines set by the constitution.