Who is the Militia? State Defense Forces

[One Revelator]

State defense forces (SDF) (also known as state guards, state military reserves, or state militias) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government; they are partially regulated by the National Guard Bureau but they are not a part of the Army National Guard of the United States.[1] State defense forces are authorized by state and federal law and are under the command of the governor of each state.

State defense forces are distinct from their state's National Guard in that they cannot become federal entities (all state National Guard units can be federalized under the National Defense Act of 1933 with the creation of the National Guard of the United States.[2]) The federal government recognizes state defense forces under 32 U.S.C. § 109 which provides that state defense forces as a whole may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces of the United States, thus preserving their separation from the National Guard. However, under the same law, individual members serving in the state defense force are not exempt from service in the armed forces. But, under 32 USC § 109(e) "A person may not become a member of a defense force . . . if he is a member of a reserve component of the armed forces."

Nearly every state has laws authorizing state defense forces, and 22 states, plus Puerto Rico, have active SDFs with different levels of activity, support, and strength. State defense forces generally operate with emergency management and homeland security missions. Most SDFs are organized as army units, but air and naval units also exist.[3][4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Forces

[Kilika]

“The federal government recognizes state defense forces under 32 U.S.C. § 109 which provides that state defense forces as a whole may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces of the United States, thus preserving their separation from the National Guard.”

What kind of bs is that? Have they not even bothered to read the Constitution?

It's called the state militia. And the federal government in fact refers to the National Guard as the militia. Look it up. And the Guard has been under the command of the regular standing army since basically 9/11. State militias don't exist any more, thanks to the federal government over the years claiming the Guard is the militia. And those private groups out there that claim they are the state's militia are not because they aren't under the command of the state governor.

There is no such thing as "The State Defense Force". That is a fabrication of the federal government. It's not found in the Constitution.

Nearly every state has laws authorizing state defense forces

That is a lie also. EVERY state has a militia guaranteed by the Constitution, but the federal government has ursuped the militia with the National Guard.

[One Revelator]

Origins

From its founding until the early 1900s, the United States maintained only a minimal army and relied on state militias to supply the majority of its troops.[5] In 1903, the predecessor to the modern-day National Guard was formed to augment the militia and Regular Army with a federally controlled reserve force. In 1933, Congress finalized the split between the National Guard and the state defense forces by mandating that all federally-funded soldiers take a dual enlistment/commission and thus enter both the state National Guard (Title 32) and the National Guard of the United States (Title 10). This division forced states to maintain both a National Guard and a state defense force if they desired to have non-federal soldiers. During World War II, much of the National Guard was deployed on federal duty. Many states continued to maintain distinct state militias (some building on ones that never ceased to exist) to defend their own territories and shorelines.

[Kilika]

The federal government recognizes state defense forces under 32 U.S.C. § 109 which provides that state defense forces as a whole may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces of the United States, thus preserving their separation from the National Guard

You realize this is Wikipedia? I mean serioously, your talking about the very legal basis of a country, and you use that site? Which is incorrect, or should I say, putting out misdirection by referring to US Code rather than the Constitution.

THIS is the militia...

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article 1 Section 8

Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militi according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1toc_user.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/10/the-21st-century-militia-state-defense-forces-and-homeland-security

Ultimately, despite misgivings about the effectiveness of militias, the Founding Fathers incorporated their belief that a well-regulated militia was “the ultimate guardian of liberty” into the Constitution.[5] Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states:

The Congress shall have the power…to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.[6]

The language of the Constitution granted the federal government the power to call forth the militia of the United States, but left the states the ability to appoint officers and to train their militias.

Five years after the Constitution was ratified, state militia powers were more firmly defined by the Militia Act of 1792, which required all free men ages 18 to 45 to serve in the enrolled militia. Further, laying the basis for principles that guide today’s State Defense Forces, the act dictated that the Adjutant General (TAG) of each state would command the militia and that state militias would receive no federal funds. At the same time, however, the Calling Forth Act of 1792 gave the President power to mobilize any and all state militia forces when the nation was under threat of invasion or in times of “insurrections in any State.”[7]

However, the Militia Act and Calling Forth Act did not end the contest between state governors and the federal government for control over militia forces. Within a few decades, this debate reached the Supreme Court. In 1827, the Court ruled in Martin v. Mott that the President had the exclusive right to determine if conditions warranted mobilization of militia forces. However, in 1820, the Court held in Houston v. Moore that states maintained concurrent authority with the President to mobilize the militia in the event of a natural disaster, civil unrest, insurrection, or invasion. This decision helped to set the basis for the modern state-apportioned militias.[8]

By the end of the War of 1812, the militias enrolled under the Militia Act of 1792 had largely declined as population growth made their size unwieldy and ineffective.[9] As states increasingly abolished mandatory militia service, volunteer militias became more prevalent. During the Civil War, the combined force of enrolled and volunteer militias proved more useful than in any previous war. Northern militias acted both independently and in conjunction with the U.S. Army to guard prisoners, man forts, and protect the coast, freeing up federal troops for duty elsewhere.[10]

Despite their utility during the Civil War, volunteer militia forces remained largely disparate and disorganized bodies until the 20th century. In 1903, the latest Militia Act (the Dick Act) transformed all state militia forces into units of the National Guard.[11] While this measure helped to professionalize and organize the U.S. militia, World War I created unforeseen challenges for state governors.

Within months of the U.S. entrance into World War I, the entire National Guard Force of more than 300,000 guardsmen was mobilized for active duty.[12] Deprived of their National Guard units and concerned about sabotage and espionage attempts on the mainland, governors began to call for the creation of home defense forces or organized state militias. The Home Defense Act of 1917 permitted the states to raise home defense forces in cases where the National Guard had been federalized.[13] By December 1917, eight months after the U.S. entered the war, 42 states had formed home guards or State Defense Forces with a total force strength of approximately 100,000 men.[14] After World War I, most SDF units were disbanded, but they were revived again during World War II,[15] growing to 150,000 members in 46 states and Puerto Rico.[16]

After World War II, militias again declined, and circumstances did not prompt creation of large State Defense Forces until late in the Cold War. In the 1950s, Congress again passed legislation supporting the formation of state militias.[17] However, the creation and expansion of SDFs throughout the United States remained slow until U.S.–Soviet relations worsened and détente collapsed in the late 1970s.[18]

At the same time that the Cold War was driving the expansion of State Defense Forces, the unpopularity of the Vietnam War led to a drive to end conscription. In 1969, President Richard Nixon established a commission to determine how best to abolish the draft. The Gates Commission concluded that the best alternative to conscription would be an all-volunteer force. However, creating and maintaining this all-volunteer force would rely heavily on the Total Force Concept, which called for complete integration of all Active and Reserve components. Further, the Total Force Concept’s heavy reliance on Reserve forces increased the likelihood that states would be left without their National Guard troops if they were deployed overseas.[19] This realization led many states to revive their SDFs in the 1980s. Ultimately, in 1983, Congress amended the National Defense Act to authorize all states to maintain permanent State Defense Forces.[20]

The Modern Militia: State Defense Forces

At present, 23 states and territories have SDFs, and their estimated force strength totaled 14,000 members as of 2005.[21] Authorized under federal statute Title 32 of the U.S. Code, SDFs are entirely under state control—unlike the National Guard— both in peace and otherwise.[22] Hence, while the National Guard is a dual-apportioned force that can be called to federal service under Title 10 or remain a state force under Title 32, State Defense Forces serve solely as Title 32 forces
 (cont.)

Again, see where the federal is pointing to the authorization of these "SDF" things? US Code.

They can't change the Constitution at will, but, they CAN pass laws and get them into the US Code, and new laws can be entered into the Code, supplanting previou law, accord to US Code, and not the Constitution.

They present US Code as superior, the final word on law. Not true in my opinion. THe Constitution is the final say in the Ameircan form of government. US Code should stand on the Constitution, not the other way around.




A little history...

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FieldsAndHardy.html

[JT Coyoté]

Sorry there OP, what you describe is not the militia...

The militia and it's power originate and are organized as a county function... The 1903-05 Dick Act was an attempt to place a militia under state power with federal over-sight... unfortunately for the power brokers, you cannot amend the Constitution by legislation... it is a no-no.

By definition, given the wording and structure of the Second Amendment, the meaning of which has not changed in 221 years... the people and the militia are one and the same and exists in contrast to any standing force larger than a county force during a time of peace and must comprise the standing force during time of war...

The Militia Act of 1792 called up the militia to federal service for the first time for the constitutionally prescribed 2 years then it was sunset-ed... it is still dormant on the books and is well worth reading to help you understand the structure and mandate the militia commands...

The commander of the county militia is the County Sheriff btw... the militia or minute men also comprise what is today called the Posse.

Oldyoti

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
American people's liberty teeth and the cornerstone of independence.
The church, the plow, the prairie wagon, and citizen's firearms are indelibly
related. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events,
occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and
happiness, the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner
of this land knows firearms, and more than 99~9/10 percent of them by their
silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands.The very atmosphere of
firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil; firearms deserve a place
with all that's good and virtuous. When firearms go, all goes; like prayer,
we need them every hour." ~George Washington -- in his Address to the
Second Session of the First United States Congress, January 7, 1790, reported in
the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790.

[Dok]

The commander of the county militia is the County Sheriff btw... the militia or minute men also comprise what is today called the Posse.

Is that country wide? and where is this information found?

[Leftovers]

I looked into militias ten years ago..the govt was doing everything they could to make their life's hell..I wonder if it's changed?..

[One Revelator]

This is a really good thread so far. Thanks all for responding. Honestly, my original intent was to point out that SDFs existed, something I wasn’t aware of till recently. However, this topic has developed into several lively, thought-provoking points.

The term militia (  /mɨˈlɪʃə/),[1] or irregular army, is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens[2] to provide defence, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. It is a polyseme with multiple distinct but related meanings. Legal and historical meanings of militia include:

1.   Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.[3]

2.   The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.
    a.   A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.
    b.   A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal  obligation.

3.   A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.

4.   An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or State Defense Forces.

5.   The national police forces in several former communist states such as the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries, but also in the non-aligned SFR Yugoslavia. The term was inherited in Russia, and other former CIS countries. See: Militia (Police).

6.   In France the equivalent term "Milice" has become tainted due to its use by notorious collaborators with Nazi Germany.[citation needed]

7.   A select militia is composed of a small, non-representative portion of the population,[4] often politicized

Yeah, I know, it’s Wiki again.

Definition 1 fits the county sheriff/posse idea. Jurisdiction of this force defines this “militia”.

Definition 2 fits both state and federal constitutions as a potential force. This is IAW US Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15/16 and implies an ability to conscript people. Some states recognize this as a component or subset of their SDF.

Definition 3 is a Fed favorite to lure people into jail and calls “well regulated” into question.

Definition 4 is a manifestation of definition 2. It is organized, trained, and accountable to some form of government.


Here’s the actual US code:

§109. Maintenance of other troops
(a) In time of peace, a State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands may maintain no troops other than those of its National Guard and defense forces authorized by subsection (c).

(b) Nothing in this title limits the right of a State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands to use its National Guard or its defense forces authorized by subsection (c) within its borders in time of peace, or prevents it from organizing and maintaining police or constabulary.

(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.

(d) A member of a defense force established under subsection (c) is not, because of that membership, exempt from service in the armed forces, nor is he entitled to pay, allowances, subsistence, transportation, or medical care or treatment, from funds of the United States.

(e) A person may not become a member of a defense force established under subsection (c) if he is a member of a reserve component of the armed forces.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 600; Pub. L. 85–861, §2(2), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1542; Pub. L. 100–456, div. A, title XII, §1234(b)(1), Sept. 29, 1988, 102 Stat. 2059; Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title X, §1057(b)(3), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3441; Pub. L. 111–383, div. A, title X, §1075(h)(4)(B), Jan. 7, 2011, 124 Stat. 4377.)

Historical and Revision Notes
1956 Act

In subsection (a), the words “those of its National Guard” are substituted for the words “as authorized in accordance with the organization prescribed under this Act”.
In subsections (a) and (b), the provisions of 32:194(c) are exhausted by the enumeration of the jurisdictions named.
In subsection (b), the words “Nothing in this title limits” are substituted for the words “Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to limit”.

1958 Act

In subsection (c), the words “heretofore authorized by this Act [sic]”, “as such”, and “in any manner” are omitted as surplusage.
In subsection (d), the words “under any Federal law” are omitted since only Federal law could require service in the armed forces. The word “military” is omitted as surplusage.
In subsection (e), the words “defense force” are substituted for the words “organized militia” for accuracy and to conform to subsection (c). The words “reserve component of the armed forces” are substituted for the words “Reserve Forces as defined in section 901 of Title 50”, since that term is not defined in the Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1952.

Amendments

2011—Subsecs. (a) to (c). Pub. L. 111–383 amended directory language of Pub. L. 109–163, §1057(b)(3). See 2006 Amendment note below.
2006—Subsecs. (a) to (c). Pub. L. 109–163, §1057(b)(3), as amended by Pub. L. 111–383, substituted “State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands” for “State or Territory, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, or the District of Columbia”.
1988—Subsecs. (a) to (c). Pub. L. 100–456 struck out “the Canal Zone,” after “Virgin Islands,”.
1958—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 85–861, §2(2)(A), substituted “defense forces authorized by subsection (c)” for “State defense forces”.
Subsecs. (c) to (e). Pub. L. 85–861, §2(2)(B), added subsecs. (c) to (e).

http://uscodebeta.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-title32-section109&num=0

The US code does contain authoritative language “authorizing” SDFs. However, by deleting the term “militia” in 1958, the term itself returns to polysemy. I’m thinking that this is intentionally kept vague.

From where does the federal government derive this authority to dictate to the states what forces they may or may not have though? Is 32 USC 109 constitutional? If not, why hasn’t it been challenged in court?

I would argue that, according to definition 2 above, there is no law regulating ordinary citizens from meeting and training together for personal readiness. This includes proficiency with firearms. If an unregulated group takes specific action that violates criminal law, then that group becomes subject to a court of law. The feds know this and have attempted to provocateur people to criminality. Since this has been largely unsuccessful, the next step for them is to delve into the flaky realm of “intent” or “thought crime.”

[JT Coyoté]

Is that country wide? and where is this information found?

This is a great question, Dok.  

As originally conceived and understood in common-law which can be found as far back as the 13th century during the decades following Magna Carta, the chief law enforcement officer of the county, the sheriff, was elected by the people. In many counties it is the same in America today where the sheriff is an elective office. Such is the case in the county where I live here in the State of Colorado.  

During the debates for the Bill of Rights between 1787 and 1791, there was some discussion concerning a possible conflict between the power of the county, Posse Comitatus, and the militia.  In Hamilton's Federalist paper No. 29, among others, this is addressed. State officers are appointed by the governor or elected among the county officers... The county officers however are elected by the people of the county directly.

Today we have the unfortunate situation where many county sheriffs are not elected directly by the people.  The sheriffs are appointed by mayors or other city or state officials which compromises their actual position to one of subordination to these officials.  However, where sheriffs are still elected by a vote of the county, being the highest law-enforcement officer in the county, given that power by a constitutional vote of the people, he has the power to call forth not only his appointed and a duly sworn posse, but under certain circumstances he can call up and swear in the militia as may be required during a county wide emergency or catastrophe, or against an unconstitutional violation via military threat.

JTCoyoté

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that
we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress
have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other
terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...
[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the
federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever
remain, in the hands of the people." ~A Pennsylvanian,
The Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788

[Dok]

thanx, just curious, as with Ohio, the Governor is the head of the militia. I cant find anything about the Sheriff for Ohio.

[JT Coyoté]

thanx, just curious, as with Ohio, the Governor is the head of the militia. I cant find anything about the Sheriff for Ohio.

Many governors have assumed this power... it is much like what is happening in the country at large with the President assuming dictatorial power under the auspices of the vague and much abused War Powers clause. 

Here in Colorado back in 1999, republican governor Bill Owens refused to appoint the state militia officers.  He was sued by members of the state militia, but the Supreme Court sided with the governor... against the militia provisions of the Colorado state Constitution... and the brain dead population just yawned...  We knew at that time our state had been co-opted. 

This began the attacks at the federal legislative level on the Posse Comitatus Act, bent upon removing all power from the people at the county level, claiming it to the feds.  This came on the heels of Sheriff Mack defeating the Brady bill in the Supreme Court on 10th Amendment grounds, reinforcing the power of the county.

Because of the 10th Amendment movement in the mid-90s, the globalists saw the necessity of a covert takeover of the states as their only inroad. They started through the office of the governors, then a stacking the of the States Supreme Courts, and finally an infiltration of the state legislatures through the insertion of federal clones into powerful legislative districts. 

The globalists long ago determined that a coordinated effort of subversion nationwide from local, state, and federal positions would be the only way they could undermine our constitutional system on the political level. 

Our only redemption is the fact that many county sheriffs are aware of this takeover.  This is why I always say that the most important votes that you cast are for your county commissioners and your county sheriff. 

JTCoyoté

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them,
may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be
occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power
to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the
next article [the Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear
their private arms." ~Trence Coxe, from "Remarks on the
First part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution",
"A Pennsylvanian" his pseudonym in the Philadelphia
Federal Gazette, 18 June 1789

[stymo1]

Bookmark

Keep the info coming JT.

[DireWolf]

There are many, many, smaller groups of 10 or less men and women around the country (many ex-military) who don't call themselves a militia group but do hold the United States Constitution as the Law of the Land and have sworn to protect this country from enemies from within or enemies from abroad.

These groups are loose knit, know of each other and in an emergency could and most likely will band together to save our Republic.

   These are the true Militia of our country. They remain elusive, committed, and un-infiltrated by government traitors. This is what is feared by the NWO goons. They NWO these groups exist but can't identify them, small un-coopted and free. Freaks the NWO out.

[JT Coyoté]

There are many, many, smaller groups of 10 or less men and women around the country (many ex-military) who don't call themselves a militia group but do hold the United States Constitution as the Law of the Land and have sworn to protect this country from enemies from within or enemies from abroad.

These groups are loose knit, know of each other and in an emergency could and most likely will band together to save our Republic.

   These are the true Militia of our country. They remain elusive, committed, and un-infiltrated by government traitors. This is what is feared by the NWO goons. They NWO these groups exist but can't identify them, small un-coopted and free. Freaks the NWO out.

These small groups are the "second tier" of the militia... hunting, fishing, trap and range Buds all close and long time friends... this is a large part of what is known as the "unorganized militia"...

The "first tier" of the unorganized militia is harder to spot however... you probably will not know they are there until things begin to pop... that's when you will discover that the non-assuming fellow in the corner house down the street who sleeps during the day and works at night, cordial in passing, but keeps to himself... that detached 2 car garage behind his house that you thought was his workshop/storage, actually has a roll off roof and houses a fully armored, laser aimed and computer actuated 40mm Anti-Aircraft Gun and thousands of rounds of ammo.  He silently built it all in his spare time from surplus and custom made parts and retrofits over the years.

JTCoyoté

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms Shall not be infringed."
The 2nd Article of the Bill of Rights

[Dok]

Many governors have assumed this power... it is much like what is happening in the country at large with the President assuming dictatorial power under the auspices of the vague and much abused War Powers clause.  

Here in Colorado back in 1999, republican governor Bill Owens refused to appoint the state militia officers.  He was sued by members of the state militia, but the Supreme Court sided with the governor... against the militia provisions of the Colorado state Constitution... and the brain dead population just yawned...  We knew at that time our state had been co-opted.  

This began the attacks at the federal legislative level on the Posse Comitatus Act, bent upon removing all power from the people at the county level, claiming it to the feds.  This came on the heels of Sheriff Mack defeating the Brady bill in the Supreme Court on 10th Amendment grounds, reinforcing the power of the county.

Because of the 10th Amendment movement in the mid-90s, the globalists saw the necessity of a covert takeover of the states as their only inroad. They started through the office of the governors, then a stacking the of the States Supreme Courts, and finally an infiltration of the state legislatures through the insertion of federal clones into powerful legislative districts.  

The globalists long ago determined that a coordinated effort of subversion nationwide from local, state, and federal positions would be the only way they could undermine our constitutional system on the political level.  

Our only redemption is the fact that many county sheriffs are aware of this takeover.  This is why I always say that the most important votes that you cast are for your county commissioners and your county sheriff.  

JTCoyoté

nope, not in Ohio. The Govenor is the head of the Militia, this has been in the State Constitution since 1851.

GOVERNOR IS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF MILITIA.
§10 He shall be commander-in-chief of the military
and naval forces of the state, except when they shall be
called into the service of the United States.
(1851)

Even the Colorado State Constitution states the Govenor as the head of the Militia. Article 17, 1876. According to that the Sheriff just cant assume the position of Militia commander. Where are you getting your info for the Sheriff to take over?

[One Revelator]

Posted for Dok. 2 groups – land and sea:



The Ohio Military Reserve (OHMR), under the command of Brigadier General Charles S. Rowell, Jr., is a state defense force, legally authorized to the 50 states, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia, under United States Code Title 32 § 109 (c).

In Ohio, the OHMR is formed under the legal authority of Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Section 5920, which designates the Governor of Ohio as the Commander-In-Chief of the OHMR. The OHMR is also one of the constituent components of the Organized Militia of Ohio, in accordance with ORC Section 5923.01, along with the Ohio National Guard and the Ohio Naval Militia. The Adjutant General served as the commander of the OHMR, by virtue of her statutory authority to serve as commander of the Ohio Organized Militia, as outlined in ORC 5913.01.

http://www.anymeeting.com/ohmrrecruiting

and…



The Ohio Naval Militia [ONM] is an organized, unarmed, all volunteer unit that has been serving the State of Ohio and our nation since 1896. The unit serves under Ohio's Adjutant General and it's operational headquarters is on the Camp Perry Training Site, just outside of Port Clinton, Ohio, on the shores of Lake Erie.
Ohio's Adjutant General is responsible for Ohio's Organized Militia which include the Ohio National Guard [ONG] and the State Defense Force. The State Defense Forces include the Ohio Naval Militia [ONM] and the Ohio Military Reserve [OHMR].  See the Ohio Revised Code - Chapter 5921.

http://www.navalmilitia.ohio.gov/

[JT Coyoté]

nope, not in Ohio. The Govenor is the head of the Militia, this has been in the State Constitution since 1851.

Even the Colorado State Constitution states the Govenor as the head of the Militia. Article 17, 1876. According to that the Sheriff just cant assume the position of Militia commander. Where are you getting your info for the Sheriff to take over?

In the Colorado State Constitution the governor is designated by article IV sec 5 commander in chief in peacetime... he has one overarching seminal responsibility... which is to appoint, or cause to be appointed the State Militia officers. Each County comprises a company of the whole of the State militia each selecting it's own officers... they are then commissioned by the governor.

Nowhere in Article XVII is the governor given any military power at all.

Here is the entire article... with bold-ing as necessary for clarity.

Article XVII of the Colorado State Constitution

as amended

Militia.  

Section 1
   
Persons Subject to Service

The militia of the state shall consist of all able­bodied male
residents of the state between the ages of eighteen and
forty­five years; except, such persons as may be exempted
by the laws of the United States, or of the state.

Section 2
   
Organization Equipment Discipline

The organization, equipment and discipline of the militia
shall conform as nearly as practicable, to the regulations
for the government of the armies of the United States.

Section 3
   
Officers How Chosen

The governor shall appoint all general, field and staff
officers and commission them. Each company shall elect
its own officers, who shall be commissioned by the governor;
but if any company shall fail to elect such officers within
the time prescribed by law, they may be appointed by
the governor.

Section 4

Armories

The general assembly shall provide for the safekeeping
of the public arms, military records, relics and banners
of the state.

Section 5

Exemption in Time of Peace

No person having conscientious scruples against bearing
arms, shall be compelled to do militia duty in time of peace;
provided, such person shall pay an equivalent for such
exemption.


During a time of declared war, the President assumes the power of Commander of all State Militias...

Your 'assumption' that Summit County Sheriff John Minor is assuming power is poorly selected. Since the founding of the state, in most counties of Colorado the election of the Sheriff is also election of the commanding officer of the county militia... the operative word here is elected. Once the selection is made the governor, by law must commission them. By not doing so he has effectively and unconstitutionally disbanded the militia... the county sheriff have more power than the governor within the county, btw... and have maintained the Constitution in spite of this dereliction of executive duty...

Bill "the Globalist Neo-Con" Owens, abrogated this constitutional duty and got his circle jerk globie buddies in the state supreme court to agree with him... they did...

Hope this helps...

JTCoyoté

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are
neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws
make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants;
they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for
an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than
an armed man." ~Thomas Jefferson,
quoting from "Commonplace Book, 1774-1776," by
Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment.  

[Kilika]

The organization, equipment and discipline of the militia
shall conform as nearly as practicable, to the regulations
for the government of the armies of the United States.

Looks like section 2 says that the structure and operation should follow with reason the standing army, so that stands to reason that when using the term, "company", it means what a company is in army terms, so the "company" commanders, as you say are the "elected" sheriffs, they would still answer to governor-appointed staff officers. "Company"-level command is more or less mid-level authority.

There is a difference between the seniority of "staff" and "line" officers. A company commander is like a regional supervisor in civilian terms, nothing more but a line officer in the overall structure, that still must answer to staff officers.

What your suggesting it seems is that the only command structure is under the sheriff, that there are no other staff between the governor and a sheriff. That's convenient if you claim that the sheriff is the prime authority the way you are.

http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/company.shtml

The Company is a cohesive tactical sized unit that can perform a battlefield function on its own. It is capable of receiving and controlling additional combat, combat support or combat service support elements to enhance its mission capability. The Company has a small Headquarters element to assist the Commander. Typically, three to five platoons form a Company, with between 60 and 200 soldiers and 15-25 vehicles. (cont.)

If the state constitution says the governor is militia commander only in peacetime, I can't agree with that.

The whole point of a state militia is to protect the state and it's citizens. Who then in wartime is the militia commanders? The county sheriffs? Or are you saying command shifts to the federal in wartime automatically?

I contend that the state governors are the ultimate authority of the militia within their own state, and any sheriffs are under the authority of the governor, eleced or not. I also say the federal government never has automatic command of the state militia. It must be given over by the govenor first voluntarily. The whole point is to have seperation between state and federal authority. States should never hand over command and control of their state carte blanch. Look at world history and tell me that would be the thing to do! NEVER hand over total control, or else they will keep it once they got it.

I also disagree that a sheriff has authority over a state governor. That's absurd legally. That's like saying a company commander has authority over a general. No question there is certain situations where the sheriff is the "law of the land", of course, but they still must answer to the governor and state law.

I hope I'm misunderstanding what your claiming.

[JT Coyoté]

Looks like section 2 says that the structure and operation should follow with reason the standing army, so that stands to reason that when using the term, "company", it means what a company is in army terms, so the "company" commanders, as you say are the "elected" sheriffs, they would still answer to governor-appointed staff officers. "Company"-level command is more or less mid-level authority.

Your interpretation of Section 2 of Article XVII, of the Colorado State Constitution completely disregards the historical context and misconstrues by adding words and meanings to it based upon contemporary view. This must be avoided. Alterations that cause conflict in the meanings, as well as in the thinking process of the people who read the words, is dangerous deconstruction.

"The organization, equipment and discipline of the militia
shall conform as nearly as practicable, to the regulations
for the government of the armies of the United States."


The United States as used here is plural. The word armies is also plural... Virginia is not Nevada, obviously they are 2 separate things; yet both have armies or state militias. Nowhere in this section is there a mention of or even a hinting at, a singular standing army. There is however, reiteration of the mandate prescribed by the Constitution in article 2 of the Bill of Rights where it says "... a well regulated militia being necessary..." this is provided by the War Department regulations that uniformly govern or regulate the armies of the several states in uniformity is being referenced.

You cannot be well regulated if Virginia is armed with flintlocks, while Nevada is armed with breech loaders, the regulations sets the standard for all.  Regulated also means that the men are well drilled and understand the right and just laws they may be called to lay down their life for... they will also know a lawful order from a lawless one, and finally know the command structure and procedure.

Where most people get hung up is thinking that the United States is just one thing, when in fact it is 50 things that act as ONE thing only in constitutionally prescribed areas.

The Founding Fathers, in order to avoid misconstruction in understanding while crafting of the Constitution, word-smithed each clause with operative words whose many meanings would not be in conflict with the intent of the clause, as well as writing it at an eighth-grade level; a daunting task to accomplish.  Later, the architects of the state constitutions followed the same guide lines as much as practicable.

There is a difference between the seniority of "staff" and "line" officers. A company commander is like a regional supervisor in civilian terms, nothing more but a line officer in the overall structure, that still must answer to staff officers.

What your suggesting it seems is that the only command structure is under the sheriff, that there are no other staff between the governor and a sheriff. That's convenient if you claim that the sheriff is the prime authority the way you are.

http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/company.shtml

If the state constitution says the governor is militia commander only in peacetime, I can't agree with that.

The situation here is one of the governor failing to appoint or cause to be appointed the general and field staff officers.  By his action he has placed the county sheriffs/county militia commanders, directly beneath him in a peacetime capacity.  In a time of war the governor has no capacity, being the civil political leader of the state only.  He has failed to appoint or cause to be appointed his wartime counterpart, the adjutant general, and the rest of the general staff... in so doing the governor has violated the state constitution.  

You see our constitutional government from its inception is not a military government nor is it a corporate government, which is in effect a military style hierarchy.  The Government the founders gave us after agonized over every contingency for half a decade, was a civil constitutional republic.  

Because of the fact that one of the primary reasons for the Second Amendment was as a protection against the possibility of the government going tyrannical, the militia was set up separately from civil government yet the two were set in mutual service abiding by the same laws.  The only officer who holds a positions in both is and one that is elected to provide law enforcement within the county as well as organization and coordination of the militia at the county level.

The whole point of a state militia is to protect the state and it's citizens. Who then in wartime is the militia commanders? The county sheriffs? Or are you saying command shifts to the federal in wartime automatically?

The primary reason for the militia is to protect life, liberty and property of individuals, the people's communities, their county and state, and finally to protect the nation of States...in our form of government power flows from the individuals to the state, not the other way around.

I contend that the state governors are the ultimate authority of the militia within their own state, and any sheriffs are under the authority of the governor, eleced or not. I also say the federal government never has automatic command of the state militia. It must be given over by the govenor first voluntarily. The whole point is to have seperation between state and federal authority. States should never hand over command and control of their state carte blanch. Look at world history and tell me that would be the thing to do! NEVER hand over total control, or else they will keep it once they got it.

The sheriff works at the behest of the people and the state constitution he is the gate between the power of the state and the power of the county. When war is declared, the governor relinquishes all hold on the militia to the State's Adjutant General who's orders from that point, come from the war department...

We are the People in Peace, the Militia during times of war... the county commander is in this chain of command...no longer is he the Sheriff...

I also disagree that a sheriff has authority over a state governor. That's absurd legally. That's like saying a company commander has authority over a general. No question there is certain situations where the sheriff is the "law of the land", of course, but they still must answer to the governor and state law.

I hope I'm misunderstanding what your claiming.

[/quote]

I never said the sheriff had command over the governor I said that in the county the sheriff has greater power than the governor, just like the governor has greater power within state government than does the President...

Like I said... the Sheriff answers to the people of his county in accordance with the constitutional foundational and state law... within the county the power is the Sheriff, much like the relationship the governor has with the US president... as above, so below, the bottom line is the law of the land, the arbitrator of power yet the final say as always should be, is with the people... from wince all true political power comes.

Oldyoti

"It is a universal truth that the loss
of liberty at home is to be charged to
the provisions against danger, real or
pretended, from abroad." ~James Madison

[Kilika]

Wow, that is one of the most light-footed dance steps I've seen in awhile! I think you're beginning to actually believe your own editorial prose.

I'm sorry JT, but in a indirect fashion, you managed to avoid the real questions, and instead reiterate your opions about the authority of the local county sheriff. I bet your own local sheriff just loves you, but that is beside the point at hand that you just sidestepped and didn't answer.

I didnt' ask for a constitutional history lesson. Been there done that. I asked direct questions. Only one did you make an attempt, which was about the sheriff authority in wartime, to which you provided zero source for your allegations. What is this "Adjunct General" you speak of? Is that in the state constitution? I suspect your suggesting that this adjunct is the sheriff?

And contrary to what you seem to be saying, there is such a thing as the "standing army" of the "united States". Of course it's a group of states, not one under a federal. The states exist with or without the federal government. The feds are nothing but diplomats outside our borders, and provide security to the nation as a whole from foreign invaders, but that does not prevent the state's constitutional responsibility to protect itself with it's own forces up to it's own state border.

Militias are for the protection of the state from the federal, or anybody else for that matter, within it's own border.

The 'standing army" is for the nation as a whole to protect the nation from it's national border outward, from foreigners, and to assistant in the event of a national disaster-type events where the state resources can't handle it, and for the protection of the state in the event of insurrection.

The federal government is the administrative arm of the collection of the states outwardly. And inwardly is the servant of the people.

"Historial context" is not law. I said "it looks like..." it's to follow the "standing army" style or structure, whether you agree with a federal standing army or not. I didn't ask for your opinion. The law says it, that they are to follow the standing army structure.

Operational standards are determined by those in charge. So what's the point? If one commander wants flintlocks, that's on him. It's up to that state to determine what they want. Your deflecting JT!

And finally, I got you to cut to the chase...

I said that in the county the sheriff has greater power than the governor

I've read this interpretation before. Rather radical, and really upsets the authorities. But, regardless, I totally disagree. You people that believe this ideology are simply wrong, period.

If what you say is true, then what's the point of a governor then? Or a county even? Why not have one sheriff of the state? OH WAIT, they do! It's called Attorney General!

You're confusing authority to enforce county law with something else. You make it sound like a county and it's sheriff are autonomous from the state governor, to which I totally diagree.

Whatever beef you got with the local authorities, that's on you dude, but it's no wonder you got problems, with the ideology of government that you have, considering it promotes the undermining of the state government as it's designed.

Thank God Almighty I live under a different government not made by man!

[JT Coyoté]

I'm so happy that the law you live by is higher than Mans...

I just hope the bee that has obviously buzzed up your skirt here, leaves you soon and doesn't cause you a fall... Your last post telegraphs loudly to those here who do know... that you don't know....fyi... In the system as it is now without appointed, or caused to be appointed general and field staff officers, their are sheriffs of the several counties, who by the governors inaction find themselves in an awkward position.

It is Adjutant General... it's in common usage... just like any other term of military ranking... each state is slightly different, no more cookie cutter than individuals are... yet even the state of OHIO has an Adjutant General...  

You might wish to read the CO State Constitution at the sections mentioned in the several posts... and then read the Posse Comitatus act of 1878... Both of your posts were rambling attacks on my analysis via opinionated disagreement... nothing to answer there...

What you disagree with is written clearly in the state constitution for anyone to read, it's not my opinion it is fact... you supply only your opinion of disagreement with stated fact, and never asked a clear question of me in either post... had it been otherwise I would have answered it.

Your "cut to the chase" segment is almost humorous... if both the governor and the sheriff are following the constitution and the law, the scenario you paint will never occur... both will be within their lawful sphere... when one or the other oversteps those bounds or abridges them as the governor has in his negligent attempt to destroy the militia in Colorado... the county leaders have power of constitutional recourse...  well I think that is explanation enough... 

Oh... the 2007 JWDAA changes to the 1807 insurrection act, which effectively gutted key provisions of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act... were repealed completely by the 2008-NDAA reinstating in full the provisions of the Insurrection Act of 1807 and PCA...

The County sheriff is the only law enforcement officer that is selected by a direct vote of the people with the specific charge from the people of upholding in all cases whatsoever, the provisions of the constitution of the state which includes it's enabling documents... the Declaration of Independence, Constitution for the United States of America, and the Bill of Rights, all of which are printed in full in the front pages before the printing of the body of the State Constitution.

In any dealing the federal or state government wishes to initiate within the county the sheriff and or the board of county commissioners must be notified and concur or a sovereignty/jurisdiction violation is perpetrated.

If the sheriff, in clear performance of his election mandate, had not been notified first, if not before the authorization at the very latest before the service, of a federal DEA no-knock warrant to be executed in our county on May 28, 2009... There would have been several dead DEA agents and I would likely have been ended as well...  Had the sheriff been notified, as he should have been before the warrant was authorized, it would have never been issued.

Yes I have great respect for my county sheriff, as he respects my understanding of federal and state foundation Law.

JTCoyoté

"I ask, sir, what is the militia?
It is the whole people, except
for a few public officials."
~George Mason  

[Kilika]

The bee in my bonnet is people claiming certain things that aren't true, then they try to justify it by posting long-winded ramblings that provide zero proof of the claims.

JT, you say, "telegraphs loudly to those here who do know... that you don't know"

Really? I don't know what? And who are "those here"? You got a mouse in your pocket? 

You can't even provide an answer to my question about "Adjutant General". Your making a claim JT but not tying it together with proof.

Let's get clear the sheriff issue. Are you saying the sheriff is the "adjutant general"?

Here's 3 questions you...uh...overlooked...

What is this "Adjunct General" you speak of? Is that in the state constitution? I suspect your suggesting that this adjunct is the sheriff?

We need a definition for this position too, as I don't think you understand what the postion is...(I gather you never served in the military?)

Adjutant is a military rank or appointment. In some armies, including most English-speaking ones, it is an officer who assists a more senior officer, while in other armies, especially Francophone ones, it is an NCO (non-commissioned officer), normally corresponding roughly to a Staff Sergeant or Warrant Officer.

An Adjutant General is commander of an army's administrative services...(basically a secretary!)



...In the US Army, historically the Adjutant was generally a member of the branch or regiment of the parent unit (e.g. in an infantry battalion, the adjutant was usually an infantry officer). In 2008, as a result of the Army's transformation, the Human Resources community implemented the Personnel Services Delivery Redesign, which recoded the adjutant position in battalions to an officer from the Adjutant General branch.[1] The Adjutant at the battalion-level is generally a junior captain or senior first lieutenant and, in conjunction with the S-1 section, manages the administrative functions of the unit. The adjutant, particularly in a battalion, also works closely with the unit's command sergeant major for awards ceremonies, traditional ceremonial functions, casual events (hails and farewells), evaluation reports, and management of correspondence and other secretarial functions. At the brigade-level, an adjutant will be either a captain or a major and is also a member of the Adjutant General's Corps. Above the brigade level, the officer in charge of the personnel section of the element is no longer called an adjutant. At any level, the adjutant no longer serves as the commander's personal assistant, but more as a functioning member of the staff managed by the executive officer.

Yeah it's Wiki, prove it wrong.

So in reality, that position/rank is nothing more than basically an admin secretary, which in this case, a secretary to the state governor, IF you claim the sheriff is a/the adjutant general.

Stay on target JT. Don't drift on me now. Cut to the chase and spit it out. I know what your trying to say, but you just don't quite get there. Go for it. Say it clearly JT.

Never mind. I'll do it for you...(Your whole beef on this topic is spelled out right there. I think they call it a person grudge.)

If the sheriff, in clear performance of his election mandate, had not been notified first, if not before the authorization at the very latest before the service, of a federal DEA no-knock warrant to be executed in our county on May 28, 2009... There would have been several dead DEA agents and I would likely have been ended as well...  Had the sheriff been notified, as he should have been before the warrant was authorized, it would have never been issued.

THAT is your bee in your bonnet! Most I'd say don't remember those days, but I do. I remember when all that went down JT. But just because you got nailed, quilty or not, that doesn't justify trying to make up a defense in public that simply has no legal grounds.

You still have not shown how the sheriff is what you claim.

[JT Coyoté]

This is a really good thread so far. Thanks all for responding. Honestly, my original intent was to point out that SDFs existed, something I wasn’t aware of till recently. However, this topic has developed into several lively, thought-provoking points.
Yeah, I know, it’s Wiki again.

Definition 1 fits the county sheriff/posse idea. Jurisdiction of this force defines this “militia”.

Definition 2 fits both state and federal constitutions as a potential force. This is IAW US Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15/16 and implies an ability to conscript people. Some states recognize this as a component or subset of their SDF.

Definition 3 is a Fed favorite to lure people into jail and calls “well regulated” into question.

Definition 4 is a manifestation of definition 2. It is organized, trained, and accountable to some form of government.


Here’s the actual US code:
The US code does contain authoritative language “authorizing” SDFs. However, by deleting the term “militia” in 1958, the term itself returns to polysemy. I’m thinking that this is intentionally kept vague.

From where does the federal government derive this authority to dictate to the states what forces they may or may not have though? Is 32 USC 109 constitutional? If not, why hasn’t it been challenged in court?

I would argue that, according to definition 2 above, there is no law regulating ordinary citizens from meeting and training together for personal readiness. This includes proficiency with firearms. If an unregulated group takes specific action that violates criminal law, then that group becomes subject to a court of law. The feds know this and have attempted to provocateur people to criminality. Since this has been largely unsuccessful, the next step for them is to delve into the flaky realm of “intent” or “thought crime.”

I'm interested very much in your tact in discernment here O R ... what is your thinking given the 27 words of the 2nd Amendment... as it relates to article 1 sec.8 clauses 11-16... then, a comparison with the modern Swiss method, which is actually quite second-amendment-esque really.

Your view of SDFs as unconstitutional is correct as I read it... they could easily be rolled into a regional fighting force to take on the Constitutional 2nd Amendment militia, you and me... those sneaky bastards...

JTCoyoté

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body
of the people, trained in arms, is the best
most natural defense of a free country."
~James Madison

[Kilika]

My apologies for the topical drift, and for getting a bit sharp with my words.

Thank you JT for getting back on target, which is "who is the militia?", though that does tie in with who is the "sheriff", and who is the "commander" of the militia?

"State Defense Forces"? Nope, that is not the militia spelled out in the Constitution.

[JT Coyoté]

The bee in my bonnet is people claiming certain things that aren't true, then they try to justify it by posting long-winded ramblings that provide zero proof of the claims.

JT, you say, "telegraphs loudly to those here who do know... that you don't know"

Really? I don't know what? And who are "those here"? You got a mouse in your pocket?  

You can't even provide an answer to my question about "Adjutant General". Your making a claim JT but not tying it together with proof.

Let's get clear the sheriff issue. Are you saying the sheriff is the "adjutant general"?

Here's 3 questions you...uh...overlooked...

We need a definition for this position too, as I don't think you understand what the postion is...(I gather you never served in the military?)
Yeah it's Wiki, prove it wrong.

So in reality, that position/rank is nothing more than basically an admin secretary, which in this case, a secretary to the state governor, IF you claim the sheriff is a/the adjutant general.

Stay on target JT. Don't drift on me now. Cut to the chase and spit it out. I know what your trying to say, but you just don't quite get there. Go for it. Say it clearly JT.

Never mind. I'll do it for you...(Your whole beef on this topic is spelled out right there. I think they call it a person grudge.)

THAT is your bee in your bonnet! Most I'd say don't remember those days, but I do. I remember when all that went down JT. But just because you got nailed, quilty or not, that doesn't justify trying to make up a defense in public that simply has no legal grounds.

You still have not shown how the sheriff is what you claim.

You are the accuser Kili... So Prove anything I have said here is wrong or untrue...

Why don't you read the Colorado constitution for yourself... or the Summit County Charter... or Google Ohio Adjutant general or Colorado Adjutant General... Google, Joe C. Moffet (Adj. Gen) and his duties... instead of wasting bandwidth here with some wiki French crap...

You are the aggressor here... You have to prove your allegations...

...and to whom am I be-grudged... The DEA thing turned out fine, The DEA guys were glad the Sheriff intervened... the "appointed" town police chief, red faced, learned a little about chain of command, and I made some new 2nd Amendment friends... because I, like what I say, am true.

Oh but later when the demoralizing OP unfolded and the attempt at my jugular began, were you on my side... do you remember? ... were you part of the crew who turned my family with threatening secret phone calls and emails... threats. I could care less now though, water under the bridge.....'cause I prevailed... and the girls told me all about it...

You are not my judge... so prove your allegations now, or pipe down.

JTCoyoté

"The attacker must vanquish, the
defender has only to prevail."
~Coyoté

[JT Coyoté]

O.R.

I'm posting this again so you don't miss it... It is very much like they are creating a special force within the states that is outside of constitutional scrutiny that can be used against state residents without constitutional repercussions.

This is a really good thread so far. Thanks all for responding. Honestly, my original intent was to point out that SDFs existed, something I wasn’t aware of till recently. However, this topic has developed into several lively, thought-provoking points.
Yeah, I know, it’s Wiki again.

Definition 1 fits the county sheriff/posse idea. Jurisdiction of this force defines this “militia”.

Definition 2 fits both state and federal constitutions as a potential force. This is IAW US Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15/16 and implies an ability to conscript people. Some states recognize this as a component or subset of their SDF.

Definition 3 is a Fed favorite to lure people into jail and calls “well regulated” into question.

Definition 4 is a manifestation of definition 2. It is organized, trained, and accountable to some form of government.


Here’s the actual US code:
The US code does contain authoritative language “authorizing” SDFs. However, by deleting the term “militia” in 1958, the term itself returns to polysemy. I’m thinking that this is intentionally kept vague.

From where does the federal government derive this authority to dictate to the states what forces they may or may not have though? Is 32 USC 109 constitutional? If not, why hasn’t it been challenged in court?

I would argue that, according to definition 2 above, there is no law regulating ordinary citizens from meeting and training together for personal readiness. This includes proficiency with firearms. If an unregulated group takes specific action that violates criminal law, then that group becomes subject to a court of law. The feds know this and have attempted to provocateur people to criminality. Since this has been largely unsuccessful, the next step for them is to delve into the flaky realm of “intent” or “thought crime.”

I'm interested very much in your tact in discernment here O R ... what is your thinking given the 27 words of the 2nd Amendment... as it relates to article 1 sec.8 clauses 11-16... then, a comparison with the modern Swiss method, which is actually quite second-amendment-esque really.

Your view of SDFs as unconstitutional is correct as I read it... they could easily be rolled into a regional fighting force to take on the Constitutional 2nd Amendment militia, you and me... those sneaky bastards...

Oldyoti

"The NRA, behind the scenes, has brokered, compromised,
and then endorsed every major anti Second Amendment
federal law passed for the last 30 years..."
C.E. Lovell, NRA Board Member 1980-93

[Ryujin]

About the whole Sheriff being the head of the milita during times of emergency I do remember reading about that in high school when my freshmen history teacher Mr. Bare (also known as "Da Bear", spoken in your best fax Midwestern accent possible, who sadly died before the year was out) was covering some Constitutional history.

Of course that proves not a whole lot so a little digging turned up this little nugget from the Weber County Sheriff's Office website:

"On August 4, 1851, an election was held in Weber County. Benjamin F. Cummings was elected Sheriff. During this time, he was also a Captain in the county militia."

Source: http://www.co.weber.ut.us/sheriff/aboutus/history.html

 Also from the Citizendia encyclopedia:

"In the United States a sheriff is generally (but not always) the highest, usually elected, law enforcement officer of a county and commander of militia in that county"

Source: http://citizendia.org/Sheriff

Wackypeida even has has this to say:

"In the United States, a sheriff is a county official and is typically the top law enforcement officer of a county. Historically, the sheriff was also commander of the militia in that county."

Though to be fair that article is a mess.

Delicious sauce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_sheriff

On the power of the Sheriff Thomas Jefferson had this to say:

"...the office of sheriff is the most important of all the executive
offices of the county."

So I think it's safe to say that there's more then just a little weight behind the idea that the sheriff is in charge of a counties militia.

Source: The Value of Constitutions by Thomas Jefferson (sorry, couldn't find any good online printings of it)

[One Revelator]

I still believe the term “militia” means slightly different things, depending on whom you talk to. AFAIK State Defense Forces ARE constitutional unless there has been some legal action that I haven’t found yet. Interesting that funding or lack thereof has influenced the understanding of what “militia” means over the years.

Who does the federal government say the militia is?

United Stated Code (USC)
TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are--

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

As an example, who does the state of Texas say the militia is?

Texas law on the Militia

The Texas Constitution once had a strong provision regarding militias:

Article 16. Section 46.
The Legislature shall provide by law for organizing and disciplining the militia of the State, in such manner as they shall deem expedient, not incompatible with the Constitution and Laws of the United States.

This section was deleted. The effect of this is that such authority reverts back to local communities.

Present statutes are encoded in Texas Government Code Chapter 431:

Subchapter A. General Provisions
431.001. Definitions
In this chapter:
(1) "Reserve militia" means the persons liable to serve, but not serving, in the state military forces.
(2) "State militia" means the state military forces and the reserve militia.
(3) "State military forces" means the Texas National Guard, the Texas State Guard, and any other active militia or military force organized under state law.
(4) "Texas National Guard" means the Texas Army National Guard and the Texas Air National Guard.

And this addresses JT’s comparison with Switzerland according to a writer on the website constitution.org.

Our duty as citizens

Most American citizens are aware that the U.S. Constitution guarantees certain rights and limits the powers of government. However, it also imposes certain duties, not only on organs of government, but on each citizen. One of these duties is to function as members of the Militia, and the state has the duty to organize and train citizens to so serve.

The U.S. Constitution provides for this in Article I, Section 8:
Congress shall have power ...

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The Framers contemplated that the citizens who compose the Militia would provide their own weapons, which is reflected in the Second Amendment:

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It is important to understand that the prevailing practice at the time the Constitution was adopted was for people in each locality to organize as independent local militias and to train themselves. The only change the Framers sought to make was to make this organization and training more systematic, along the model of Switzerland. They never imagined that future governments might try to restrict the local organization and training of independent militias by contending that people had the right to assemble and the right to keep and bear arms, but not to combine the two rights. To them that would have seemed absurd.

All quotes from here:
http://constitution.org/mil/ustx_law.htm

Again, I see nothing wrong with individual citizens training together for personal readiness. But when an armed, unaccountable group takes military action against any citizens, then things change. They can be seen as a criminal gang, terrorists, or freedom fighters depending on whom you talk to. If the group becomes large enough, then I can see the authorities thinking about invoking that “insurrection” term. If that happens, then the rules change radically, tracking all the way back to the US constitution.

“Regulated” means accountable to some living person or persons, whether they be the POTUS, governor, mayor, county commissioner, constituents, or shareholders. Accountability to an idea, concept, anything inanimate, or anything other than a currently living human entity(ies) is not legally recognized. Such a group is subject to the “criminal” label, depending on their actions.

[JT Coyoté]

I still believe the term “militia” means slightly different things, depending on whom you talk to. AFAIK State Defense Forces ARE constitutional unless there has been some legal action that I haven’t found yet. Interesting that funding or lack thereof has influenced the understanding of what “militia” means over the years.

Actually, this is correct and as it should be... the mission in the County when an emergency happens large enough to warrant the calling up and swearing in of the unorganized force, is quite local... the organization is territory knowledgeable, as well as aware of who is who in the county... the sheriff/militia commander knows who to call on to do whatever.

If the situation is large enough to involve more than the county the state is called in on standby... Under the Constitutional system, the state commanders know all of the county commanders and the cooperation is maintained by jurisdiction... Under the present system without a real state command, the governor will call on Washington... Not good. They swoop in with a jurisdiction grab trying to play everyones savior...

Who does the federal government say the militia is?

As an example, who does the state of Texas say the militia is?

And this addresses JT’s comparison with Switzerland according to a writer on the website constitution.org.

All quotes from here:
http://constitution.org/mil/ustx_law.htm

In these top down interpretives you have posted here, which seem to dominate most every Militia and 2nd Amendment discussion, have failed to hold to or even address the very language of the Article of Amendment from which they originally grow. In order to gain some insight into the bottom line meaning, a ground level truth, if you will, the 2nd Amendment itself must be consulted, which will follow at length once I've addressed the remainder of your points.

As I stated in a previous post, the Founders meticulously selected operative words in the construction of the articles of the Bill of Rights that could not be misconstrued in reading any of their meanings; as is directly stated in the preamble for the Bill of Rights in these words... (bolding is mine)

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting
the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse
of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:
And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best
ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Again, I see nothing wrong with individual citizens training together for personal readiness. But when an armed, unaccountable group takes military action against any citizens, then things change. They can be seen as a criminal gang, terrorists, or freedom fighters depending on whom you talk to. If the group becomes large enough, then I can see the authorities thinking about invoking that “insurrection” term. If that happens, then the rules change radically, tracking all the way back to the US constitution.

The scenario you describe here is likely not to happen at the hands of any bonifide constitutional militia "squad, group, or troop"... the majority of these very well understand the words, "... protect and DEFEND the Constitution for the united States against all enemies foreign and domestic..." they understand the ideas of Defensive and Righteous action.

More likely what you fear will occur at the hands of tyrannical government planted provocateur cells, impostors and infiltrators. The answer to these possible attacks will come quickly... most true small militia "groups" are well trained and cool headed believers in the Constitution. They will quickly size up the unprovoked attack on the innocent, and eliminate the provocateurs.

The unorganized militia as I referred to it in an earlier post... are the essence of the spirit of the 2nd Amendment and hold the key to the defeat of any tyranny by maintaining the Constitution and it's justice even through the conflict... This is how you will know the righteous from the unrighteous.

“Regulated” means accountable to some living person or persons, whether they be the POTUS, governor, mayor, county commissioner, constituents, or shareholders. Accountability to an idea, concept, anything inanimate, or anything other than a currently living human entity(ies) is not legally recognized. Such a group is subject to the “criminal” label, depending on their actions.

I will preface my comments on what I perceive as a "too narrow" interpretation of the operative word, "Regulated" in the 2nd Article with the following...

Where a man's heart is, is where God is and from the heart God regulates a righteous man's actions.

...This is the charge of the true militia. It is self regulating especially so when tyranny has found it's way to the homes and hearths of the people.

With that said, the founders chose the word "Regulated" not necessarily to set up a hierarchy, but more to suggest a high level of proficiency, across the board, man to man, unit to unit, well trained, well armed, and well schooled in the understanding of liberty and it's many enemies, even those within... in a phrase, the true militia is self-regulating, as much as practicable.

Any reading of the congressional and news paper debates over the Bill of Rights, the letters, and the articles of the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists on the subject of Arms and the Militia, confirms that this "Regulated" was meant broadly esoteric for the most part. The founders knew that the best leaders, like cream, would naturally rise from the ranks to the top even to the highest levels.

It was thus they agreed, that the ancient tradition of the county levy as the command basis had more merit than some convolved top down control scheme, ripe with ego trips and intrigues. Bottom line, an army of righteous Constitution protecting Militia groups as I've described are the best protectors of liberty, and could only be called "criminal" by tyrants.

What follows is the most demonstrative and understandable grammatical analysis of the meaning of the 2nd Article of Amendment, Ive seen to date...

********************

The Unabridged Second Amendment

by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms — all of which is an abridgment of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?

****************

JTCoyoté

"Let no more be said of confidence in man,
but bind him down from mischief by
the chains of the Constitution."
~Thomas Jefferson

[JT Coyoté]

Anyway, there are many state laws that say what the militia is when called to the service of the state, and others that apply when called to the service of the national government... in both cases it must be in service to the rightful laws of the land... The bottom line as to who holds the power of the militia is constitutionally codified in the Second Amendment... abide by it and the law, and government has a militia... transgress it and the law, then government has a formidable enemy.

In the words of James Madison recorded in second person during the Virginia Constitution Ratification Convention in June of 1788... he describes the meaning of the 2nd Amendment in no uncertain terms. Madison spells out "the absolute right of the people to keep and bear arms in protection of their life, liberty, and property as well as those of his neighbors. The militia is the people themselves armed as a ready force against standing armies..." be they theirs... or ours, gone rogue...

Such a time is approaching in the southwest, the federal agent refuses to perform its article 4 section 4 constitutional mandate and is now entertaining the UN in it's demand that the US return the Old Southwest to Mexico... Good luck with that...



JTCoyoté

"The people are the only legitimate fountain of
power, and it is from them that the constitutional
charter, under which the several branches of
government hold their power, is derived."
~James Madison

[Kilika]

Such a time is approaching in the southwest, the federal agent refuses to perform its article 4 section 4 constitutional mandate and is now entertaining the UN in it's demand that the US return the Old Southwest to Mexico... Good luck with that...

What is being done by the federal at the borders is pure window-dressing. We all know the funds and manpower is there to slow this thing to a trickle. But with respect to the state militia, the feds want to stop them from their constitutional duties to protect their own state borders. I'm still trying to figure out where the feds think they get the right to deny the state the right to protect itself from intruders who are not state residents.

How do the border county sheriffs operate when the federal government keeps getting in the way? And what stops those border sheriffs from amassing a militia division within it's county borders?

As far as a return of the area, that's been an on-going project for decades now. People here now have so many relatives south of the border, many travel back and forth like driving down the street to the neighbor's house. I see the Mexican state of Sonora licenses plates up here in the Phoenix area all the time. Now there is generations that are legal children of illegal immigrants. They haven't tried to come in guns blazing, they have been walking right in and setting up home. And once they moved in, they simply started the take over through local government and general business, and all the while drain the local resources of it's public assistance programs providing resources to people who don't even have a legal right to be here in the first place, but now they have sympathetic fellow latinos within the local community in postions of power, and so the take over continues. The slant of the local news media in favor of the latino community here is very obvious. Just go to any emergancy room or public assistance office. The people there aren't fake or don't exist. And it's not profiling, it's a fact here.

The invasion started long ago without a single shot being fired. All they did was cross the border.