IF They're Only for Militia, Let's Be Militia!

[mojo84]

This may help some understand the difference between the Texas State Guard and Texas National Guard. I do not believe the Constiution contemplates the Texas State Guard when discussing the militia that can be called upon by the president.

http://2nd-bn-tmar-state-tx.us/faq/FederalVsState.htm

The Texas State Guard (TXSG) is one of three components of the Texas Military Forces (TMF). The other two are the Texas Army National Guard and Texas Air National Guard. The commander of the TMF is the Texas Adjutant General (TAG), Major General Jose S. Mayorga. The TAG reports to the Commander-In-Chief of the TMF, the Governor of Texas, however, the Texas Army National Guard and Texas Air National Guard are also federal forces (reserve components of the United States Army and United States Air Force, respectively) which can be called up for Federal service and deployment. In that case, the Texas National Guard units report to the President of the United States as their Commander-In-Chief. The biggest difference for the Texas State Guard is that the Governor of Texas is always our Commander-In-Chief, and the President of the United States never is.

[thatguyoverthere]

Well, they'd first have to get over the wall they laid themselves in Heller:

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

Very true. And all very good arguments for the case. And personally, I agree. Yet, with all that, still four of the nine justices disagreed.

Andy, I'm not arguing with you, all I'm saying is that a Supreme Court decision, no matter how well thought out and correct it seems to be at the time, CAN be overturned by a later Supreme Court. It may not happen often, and it may not be easy to do, but it can happen. I try not to get worked up about what MIGHT happen, but I do like to sometimes explore the possibilities, just as a simple mind exercise, I suppose.

And as far as the militia idea, I'm not saying it's a great idea - I had just never considered that angle before.

The militia thing was just presented here just as an idea for discussion. That's what I like about this forum. Always plenty of ideas! And that's a GOOD thing!

[NotRPB]

An interesting idea that may need to be considered based on the direction the country seems to be headed.

If it's already been mentioned somewhere else here, my apologies.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... esist.html

Basically, the article talks about the probability that sooner or later, we certainly will have a Democrat president, and Democrat House & Senate. When that happens, they may have the opportunity to appoint one or more new Supreme Court justices. That future Democrat controlled legislature will also almost certainly eventually pass very restrictive, sweeping gun laws, which will be upheld by the new liberal Supreme Court.

The writer's proposed solution would be for the states to exercise their rights to pass state legislation to create a formal state militia, of which all legal gun owners would be automatically included. Then there could be no argument that the 2nd Amendment does definitely apply to those gun owners, because they are the legally defined militia, as mentioned in the 2A.

Of course, there are other considerations. Check out the short article. It's an interesting read.

So what are your thoughts on the idea?

the 2nd amendment is so that we the people can protect ourselves from private invasions by the "militia (read military)", not so that we can form a militia. This idea would essentially amount to us giving up our 2nd amendment rather than preserving it, because we would be essentially confessing to the gun control crowd that the 2nd amendment was about forming a militia and not about protecting personal freedom.

Color Coded
We People / Property Owners / Voters
Militia / Standing Army / Military

Militia Acts were not until 1792 and Militia Act of 1862

BUT at the time of the Constution being drafted and RATIFIED ... Richard Henry Lee, in his widely read pamphlet "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican" worried that the people might be disarmed by modeling the militia .

Third Amendment was written 45 minutes later with the same "mindset"

From prior posts here, so as not to re-type ... color coding added to some for consistency
Soldiers/Standing Army/Militia/well regulated Militarized Government controlled entity
People/Property Owners/ Tea Partiers/ General Population in American Revolution who mistrusted the British Army Military & didn't want a repeat of that situation
http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... er#p822819

My thoughts on the 3rd Amendment to the Constitution given us by our Founding Fathers: Most do not even know what this one is.
"No soldier in time of peace be quartered in any house,w/o the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner perscribed by law."
The reason this Amendment was added is that the American colonists were required under threat of force & even death to quarter, feed many of the British soldiers.
Now folks it is no stretch of any sane persons reasoning to know that under those circumstances the ladies of the house were not treated well all the time. The men of the house either had to stay home to protect them or go on to work in the field or @ their trade. Many of those redcoats entertained themselves while quartered there.
Our Founding Fathers knew the women needed protection.

Fast forward to 2013:
No one who knows me very well or has attended my CHL class has any difficulty understanding my contemp, utter disdain, & scorn for TSA.
I have been told by one woman "Dont like it but that is part of it so you endure it & go on."
I have often wondered if it was the same w/ our "Founding Mothers."
There is nothing new under the sun. The evil of today is the same evil of yesterday.
It is called Tyranical Government Oppression.

http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... er#p636262

I was under the impression that the Founding Fathers tried to avoid a National standing-army and hoped to rely exclusively on the Militias of the various colonies (states).

In my mind, the Militia IS the People, and vice versa.

Then that would mean the Soldiers who want to force you to quarter them are the people/property owners

I am not sure how you drew that conclusion.

The term "Soldiers" imply membership of a standing-army. Occupiers. Foreign or Domestic.

The 2 categories of persons in the two Amendments below are color coded... understand the People's mistrust of Standing Armies we had immediately surrounding the Revolution and the relation of the Third Amendment to the Second Amendment, which were written about 45 minutes apart...

Third Amendment
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in manner to be prescribed by law.

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

"being necessary" means it was recognized that a military/militia/armed "officials"/soldiers/police/defenders from Indians ... was needed as "a necessary evil" ... compromise to get it ratified ...


Town militias"NECESSARY" "a necessary evil"
Colonial era, pre-1774
The early colonists of America considered the militia an important social structure, necessary to provide defense and public safety. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%2 ... C_pre-1774" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
^ Wills, Garry (1999). A Necessary Evil, A History of American Distrust of Government Page 27. New York, NY; Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0684844893

So, your big East town folk weren't as likely to get Indian killed, so they'd have less need for a Militia, and guns ... and your frontier folk have more need for a militia, and guns to protect from both Invasion AND the Militia/standing army/police/ distrust) So we elected Rick Perry and they Elected Bloomberg ... (not much changed) but the compromise got it ratified by all

http://www.texaschlforum.com/posting.ph ... &p=1103817
Militia:

Chronology:
Militia Acts were not until 1792 and Militia Act of 1862

However the Bill of Rights, Second and Third Amendments in Articles 3 to 12, approved on September 25, 1789 and sent to the states for ratification ratified December 15, 1791

At that time, we were very suspicious of the power of a standing Federal army (Militia)
We had just gotten rid of British army controlling us, confiscating our stuff (3rd Amendment).
http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... y#p1019598

I think earlier in this thread I linked to

Richard Henry Lee, in his widely read pamphlet "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican" worried that the people might be disarmed by modeling the militia . http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... et#p677651

So, Amendment 2 was written 45 minutes before Amendment Three, with the same "mindset" mental process of allowing the People/property owners/population to protect themselves and their property from a militarized government.
If a general militia/standing army is a necessary evil, (comma) the right of the People shall not be infringed ...
(Also, We-The People/property owners needed protection from Quartering armed Soldiers/militia, hence, Amendment 3 was written about 45 minutes after Amendment 2, with Amendment 2 providing the ways and means to ensure Amendment 3

Amendment 3
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner ...

--------------------------
Grammar and Right
Well regulated refers to the LEFT side of the comma, well regulated standing army militia.
Well regulated does not refer to the RIGHT side of the comma, the RIGHT of the Property Owners PEOPLE (which shall not be infringed)

2
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.
3
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law
===============

Hopefully Judges understand Grammar and the history and relationship of 2A and 3A when reading about how THE PEOPLE (Citizenry/Property Owners) relate to the army/militia/soldiers which need to be well regulated instead of the People
(Which is precisely what prompted a revolution and Boston Tea Party, over regulation by the government)
THAT is why we have 2A and 3A to protect US PEOPLE FROM GOVERNMENT over-regulation, quartering soldiers them confiscating our "stuff" etc.


My neighbor explained it well (skip to 4:40 if you want)

[oljames3]

Question for you James, as I looked into joining the State Guard awhile back, and I saw this argument pop up on some forums:
Would Nat'l Guard enlisted guys salute an officer in the State Guard?

I read two different responses:
Yes, as they are officers in the same military (Texas Military)
No, as they are not officers in the national military and are not combat soldiers.

It doesn't really matter, I was just wondering what your encounters were. Thanks.

In my experience, Texas National Guard personnel render courtesy (salute) to Texas State Guard officers.

During both my active duty and my traditional National Guard careers, I and my soldiers often interacted with officer and enlisted personnel from the military of America's allies as well as National Guard officers from the several states. We were expected to, and did, render appropriate courtesies.

MOS and combat status is immaterial. I have always held a combat arms Military Occupational Specialty (MOS). While I was in the Army during Vietnam and several other conflicts, I have never been in shot at. I salute doctors, nurses, lawyers, and other "non-combat" service members as appropriate.

Any of my enlisted soldiers who failed to render appropriate courtesy to a Texas State Guard officer would not make that mistake again.

That's my experience.

[locke_n_load]

In my experience, Texas National Guard personnel render courtesy (salute) to Texas State Guard officers.

During both my active duty and my traditional National Guard careers, I and my soldiers often interacted with officer and enlisted personnel from the military of America's allies as well as National Guard officers from the several states. We were expected to, and did, render appropriate courtesies.

MOS and combat status is immaterial. I have always held a combat arms Military Occupational Specialty (MOS). While I was in the Army during Vietnam and several other conflicts, I have never been in shot at. I salute doctors, nurses, lawyers, and other "non-combat" service members as appropriate.

Any of my enlisted soldiers who failed to render appropriate courtesy to a Texas State Guard officer would not make that mistake again.

That's my experience.

Thanks for the insight James.

[mojo84]

For Dems, the "militia" is States' National Guard. They would respond, enlist in the National Guard and then they will force you to lock up all your firearms in the NG armories.

It is a bad plan unless you are living in pro-gun state such as Texas.

Texas has a "State Guard" that is part of the official Texas militia, and can only be controlled by the governor. I think that we could all become honorary members by some form of Texas legislation!

You need to read some more Constitution. According to Article II, Section II, the President is the Commander in Chief of the Standing Military (the Army and the Navy), and The Militia of the several states when called into service of the United States. And who is it who calls up the Militia into Federal service? The President... And what are the Constitutional requirements that have to be met for the President to call up the state militia into federal service? There are none... There are some in Title 10 U.S. Code... but those are pretty easy to meet, or manipulate, depending on how much of a skid mark the president is.

From the Texas State Guard's own website: "Headquartered at Camp Mabry in Austin, Texas, the TXSG functions as an organized state militia under the authority of Title 32 of the U.S. Code and Chapter 437 of the Texas Government Code."

Clearly, the Texas State Guard cannot be "only controlled by the Governor" per the CONUS.

So, since we all love and adore the Constitution, and we all seek to follow it to the letter.. the Texas State Guard is declared to be THE state militia of Texas, so if we all are declared to be members, and the President calls up our militia into federal service, and as their sole act of that federal service, that militia is told to stand down and deposit their arms into the local National Guard Armory... What are you going to do then?

See the problem with the whole "fight government overreach via a militia" idea. It is not going to work like you think it is going to work.

The only thing that will ever stop our government, or make them think twice is: Come and Take it.

It appears you are misinterpreting the Constitution "we all love and adore"or do not understand the difference between the Texas National Guard and the Texas State Guard.

This from the website I linked to previously.

The biggest difference for the Texas State Guard is that the Governor of Texas is always our Commander-In-Chief, and the President of the United States never is.

[AJSully421]

For Dems, the "militia" is States' National Guard. They would respond, enlist in the National Guard and then they will force you to lock up all your firearms in the NG armories.

It is a bad plan unless you are living in pro-gun state such as Texas.

Texas has a "State Guard" that is part of the official Texas militia, and can only be controlled by the governor. I think that we could all become honorary members by some form of Texas legislation!

You need to read some more Constitution. According to Article II, Section II, the President is the Commander in Chief of the Standing Military (the Army and the Navy), and The Militia of the several states when called into service of the United States. And who is it who calls up the Militia into Federal service? The President... And what are the Constitutional requirements that have to be met for the President to call up the state militia into federal service? There are none... There are some in Title 10 U.S. Code... but those are pretty easy to meet, or manipulate, depending on how much of a skid mark the president is.

From the Texas State Guard's own website: "Headquartered at Camp Mabry in Austin, Texas, the TXSG functions as an organized state militia under the authority of Title 32 of the U.S. Code and Chapter 437 of the Texas Government Code."

Clearly, the Texas State Guard cannot be "only controlled by the Governor" per the CONUS.

So, since we all love and adore the Constitution, and we all seek to follow it to the letter.. the Texas State Guard is declared to be THE state militia of Texas, so if we all are declared to be members, and the President calls up our militia into federal service, and as their sole act of that federal service, that militia is told to stand down and deposit their arms into the local National Guard Armory... What are you going to do then?

See the problem with the whole "fight government overreach via a militia" idea. It is not going to work like you think it is going to work.

The only thing that will ever stop our government, or make them think twice is: Come and Take it.

It appears you are misinterpreting the Constitution "we all love and adore"or do not understand the difference between the Texas National Guard and the Texas State Guard.

This from the website I linked to previously.

The biggest difference for the Texas State Guard is that the Governor of Texas is always our Commander-In-Chief, and the President of the United States never is.

Did some digging, and I actually found out that you are right. I went looking for any law that basically said "If a state creates its own State Guard, then the president cannot touch them... and I found something.

Title 32, U.S. Code, Chapter 1, Section 109 (c): "In addition to its National Guard, if any, a State, ... 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."

The "Armed Forces" definition is the standard services: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard.

It sounds crazy that the president can call up any able-bodied male between 17-45 to serve, but they cannot touch the members of a State Guard of any state. Sounds like a a typical law that Congress came up with.

So, you are right, I am wrong.

[The Annoyed Man]

I haven't read through this thread, so maybe someone has already covered this..... but I am opposed to having to join or be made a part of anything other than my basic privileges of citizenship as a requirement to be satisfied so that I may exercise my 2nd Amendment right - a right which I was born with, which I have simply because I breathe air, and which I will continue to enjoy and exercise as long as I am able to draw breath.

It's not that I am opposed to militias......in fact I think they are a splendid idea. It's the "requirement" part that I can't get on board with. To the OP's point that a "future Democrat controlled legislature will also almost certainly eventually pass very restrictive, sweeping gun laws, which will be upheld by the new liberal Supreme Court", YES, they may do that. But that doesn't cancel my 2nd Amendment right. The second Amendment didn't create the right, it documented and affirmed the existence of a HUMAN right, that is mine, yours, and anyone else's simply because we are humans. In the Soviet Union, free speech was illegal, but that didn't mean that there was no right to freedom of speech. All it meant was that the soviet gov't was a crapulent and venal institution dedicated to crushing humanity's right to freedom of speech. But the right doesn't go away.

That is how I feel about firearms specifically, and self defense generally. It is an ancient human right. Nazis in the democrat party can pass all the laws they want......the right does not cease to exist. But what does exist at some point, when enough laws have been passed, is the need to get the musket down from the door and to go to war against fascism in gov't. At that point, I'll gladly sign on with any militia that will have a broken down old man and do my part; but I don't want to have to either join, or be automatically enrolled in a militia just so I can exercise my fundamental human right to keep and bear arms during peace time. If it ever comes to that, then it is time to exercise that right in the name of preserving the security of a free state.

I'm too old to give a popcorn fart for what democrats do or think. I'll oppose them as long as I can, but I won't credit their fascist laws with any validity or power over me. And if it comes down to it, then let me found like Trooper Padget in a pile of spent brass........and that's with or without a militia commitment.

[Beiruty]

Being called for national service is enough for me. It is the back door draft.

[txblackout]

Someone else already pointed out, but it seems people are ignoring it. By federal codes you are already militia (unless you are old or a woman). You can read about the history of the militia by reading the various militia acts. The most recent was the militia act of 1903

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

(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 members 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.

I think the age and sex discrimination might not survive a 14th amendment challenge. But I love to beat liberals over the head with the fact that all men 17- 45 are part of the militia by default and that women are excluded and have less rights.


Texas has additional statutes about the militia.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... GV.431.htm

1) "Reserve militia" means the persons liable to serve, but not serving, in the state military forces.
(1-a) "Servicemember" has the meaning assigned by Section 161.551, Health and Safety Code.
(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..

[mojo84]

We have met the militia and he is us.