« ATFE activities in Virginia | Main | Comments »
Modern dispute over Nat'l Guard
(Via Legal Eagle) The Boston Globe is reporting a brewing conflict over the National Guard. As part of the next round of military base closings, the Pentagon proposes to relocate several NG air units to bases outside their own States. PA, Ill. and other States have sued or are preparing to do so, and the US is of course defending against it. The State's arguments appear to be based on the position that, if the NG is part (at least part) of their militia, they ought at minimum to be asked before it is moved to a different state.
The Federal position here underscores the point I've made before -- the NG is definitely not the functional equivalent of the Framers' "Militia." The functional attributes of that (the attributes which the Framers cited as the reasons for the institution) were that (a) it was composed of all the people, or at least almost all, and (b) it was primarily governed by State officials, not Federal ones.
· militia
Comments
Has anyone found the actual lawsuit (in PDF or Word) that Massachusetts is using to defend their position? I wanted to see if they used the false-flag Militia clause argument or something novel.
I was blogging about it today (http://innoparticularorder.typepad.com/in_no_particular_order/2005/08/always_such_fun.html) and wanted to reference it in my observations.
If you have found it, post the link in Comments, if you could. Many thanks!
Posted by: Poshboy at August 23, 2005 12:57 PM
Looks like a catch 22 for the state and the fed.
If the NG is the state militia then the fed can hardly remove it to another state leaving the state esentially defenseless.
All these years the state felt they *had* a militia in the NG and now suddenly find that such is not the case and can be disarmed by the fed through a simple base closing.
Interesting the Founders worried the fed would *fail* to arm the militia and there by disarm the state and its militia and now we have the fed attempting to disarm the state and its militia by removing the militia from the state.
Looks like the state may need to form the unorganized militia and allow militia members to exercise the 2nd amendment right to arm themselves with weapons of a type the standing army and the NG have.
Woopee! Where do I go to get my *wholesale* mp5 or m16 in full auto of course.
Scotus may be in a bind too calling into question previous NG rulings or forcing an incorporation of the second.
"LOL"™
Posted by: tommygun at August 23, 2005 02:18 PM
I failed to mention I want my m16 or mp5 to be capable of launching grenades take 30 round side-by-side banana mags have a bayonet lug be coated with a black parkerized finger resistant finish have a definite protruding pistol grip a colapsable stock and be state supplied to me at cost for under $300.00 AND no fed record of my ownership of said weapon.
Thanks,
"LOL"™
Posted by: tommygun at August 23, 2005 02:35 PM