OT: Seriously????

[RN7]

As a matter of interest Ancestor was your state guard outfit armed and with what were they armed with? Did you use the same rifles etc as the Army and National Guard or just hand me downs?

[Ancestor]

Originally Posted by RN7

As a matter of interest Ancestor was your state guard outfit armed and with what were they armed with? Did you use the same rifles etc as the Army and National Guard or just hand me downs?

I apologize, I didn't clarify the fact that my experience with state militias was as a traditional Guardsman working in Title 32 status with them during a response, not as a member. I know for a fact that the Louisiana State Militia is not armed, at least not the ones that I met during post-Gustav OPS. As I recall, the NY State Guard is also unarmed. I cannot speak for Texas' State Guard as I was dealing with more of a familiarization type meeting than an operational event and the members that I met were not armed (at least not obviously!)

I can say that in my state (KS) provisions exist in the militia code that officers must supply their own weapons. My old boss (MDay) actually used it to write off the purchase of his civilian M9 as a "business expense". Even though the Army issued him his own M9 for NG purposes both the IRS and KS Dept of Revenue never contested the issue. Without researching the issue for each state, I suspect that most militia codes have similar provisions. Many were written in the 19th century with similar provisions and, when updated immediately prior to or at the outbreak of either WWI or WWII, these were incorporated either by reference or via a specific new statute with the same language. As the Dick Act, which created the modern NG after the Spanish-American war and requires some level of standardization with active Army with respect to training, doctrine, and equipment, applies only to the National Guard and not State Guards, I suspect that in the Twilight world one would see a hodge-podge of both hand me down issued weapons (or, as the Small Arms Guide states, low rent weapons such as the M16 EZ) and personally owned weapons.

Hope that helps and sorry for the confusion!

[RN7]

Thanks for all that Ancestor and I am surprised that state guard forces are unarmed. I would have thought that they would have access to state armouries, even hand me down weapons like the M14. I live (part of the year) in the Kansas City area in Johnson Countr, what part of Kansas are you from?

[Ancestor]

Originally Posted by RN7

Thanks for all that Ancestor and I am surprised that state guard forces are unarmed. I would have thought that they would have access to state armouries, even hand me down weapons like the M14. I live (part of the year) in the Kansas City area in Johnson Countr, what part of Kansas are you from?

Goodland (if you are ISIS)...JoCo if you are not...

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Ancestor

Goodland (if you are ISIS)...JoCo if you are not...

Keep it a secret but I've yet to meet any Irish Catholic ISIS members in Overland Park yet!

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by RN7

Thanks for all that Ancestor and I am surprised that state guard forces are unarmed. I would have thought that they would have access to state armouries, even hand me down weapons like the M14. I live (part of the year) in the Kansas City area in Johnson Countr, what part of Kansas are you from?

There is still legal debate between the Federal Government and the States about the legality of militias. The Federal Government says that the only authorized militias are National Guard units and that all militias should be regulated by the US government as outlined by the Constitution. Their assertion is the clause that states the Government shall not use the Army to police its citizens in the main body of the document prohibits such organizations. The States claim "State's Right's," and say that such militias are authorized for the STATES under the Second Amendment (as a hedge against Federal aggression). I'm guessing that the Supreme Court will eventually have to make a ruling on this. It is only an issue with a handful of states (mostly southern border states) who have used these militias to assist local law enforcement (mainly along the Mexican border). It does set up an interesting political issue for the Milgov/Civgov debate. The power of a local militia could sway control of a region. Could "friction" between militia and US military or LE units create a problem (this is already happening occasionally in Southern Texas) that "devolves" into open warfare?

[RN7]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

There is still legal debate between the Federal Government and the States about the legality of militias. The Federal Government says that the only authorized militias are National Guard units and that all militias should be regulated by the US government as outlined by the Constitution. Their assertion is the clause that states the Government shall not use the Army to police its citizens in the main body of the document prohibits such organizations. The States claim "State's Right's," and say that such militias are authorized for the STATES under the Second Amendment (as a hedge against Federal aggression). I'm guessing that the Supreme Court will eventually have to make a ruling on this. It is only an issue with a handful of states (mostly southern border states) who have used these militias to assist local law enforcement (mainly along the Mexican border). It does set up an interesting political issue for the Milgov/Civgov debate. The power of a local militia could sway control of a region. Could "friction" between militia and US military or LE units create a problem (this is already happening occasionally in Southern Texas) that "devolves" into open warfare?

The main issue as I can see it arises when the National Guard is federalised for whatever reason and then transferred out of the state. Some National Guard units would be earmarked for transfer to other regular army units, or a National Guard formation of the size of a brigade or division could reach full mobilisation and be deemed ready for redeployment as part of the Federal US Army, but surely not all of the National Guard would leave the state. Training and support staff would remain in the state, and would National Guard regiments and battalions not be regenerated/recreated; example 1, 2 & 3 Kansas National Guard infantry battalions are sent to Texas so Kansas National Guard forms and starts training 4, 5 & 6th infantry battalions to replace them; ?

Also the fact that State Guards (militias) are not armed sort of says a lot for how much trust the US Federal and state's government has in them.

[RN7]

In T2K I could see the State Guard being a very divisive and subversive force for a number of reasons.

In Milgov controlled areas which would constitute about half of the continental United States I could not see any State Guard force being tolerated. Milgov split from the civilian government because it didn't support or trust the way it had handled the war and the reconstruction of the US. Milgov by its nature would not allow any armed body exist outside of its total control. In Milgov controlled areas any surviving State Guard forces would likely be classified as Civgov traitors, criminals or terrorists.

Civgov would be more tolerant of the State Guards due to the fact that it would still have some adherence to pre-war laws, and would hope that State Guard forces would remain lawful. However it also lacks the manpower to intimidate or confront rogue State Guard forces in many areas so I could see the State Guard in Civgov areas being either a force of good or evil.

The State Guard would also be a fertile recruitment ground for New America or other extreme right wing groups in certain areas, due to the fact that the State Guard are going to be drawn in the main from the White ethnic group with conservative or prejudice views. I could see many existent State Guard forces in Civgov areas being influenced or in cahoots with the local New American cell. Regionalism and the realities of the Twilight War would also influence State Guard members. For example the State Guard in the rural North-East and Mid-Western states are not going to be to helpful to refugees escaping New York, Boston, Chicago or any big city, and in New England maybe anti-Canadian too. The State Guard in California and the South-West are going to be hostile to all Mexicans (including Mexican-Americans) and I'm not even going to talk about how the predominantly white State Guards from rural areas in the southern states are going to treat minorities.

[unkated]

First off, thank you for the instigation of a delightful couple of hours of delving into Massachusetts State Guard, militia laws, and so on.

In Massachusetts, militias are governed by by Title V (Militias), Chapter 33 (Militias - the only chapter in Title V) - originally drawn up in 1893 with periodic amendments, insertions, and deletions.

Effectively, at present, the Mass State Defense Force (current name; in 1994 it was the Mass State Guard) is a supplementary force (supplementary to the National Guard) who may be called out for state emergencies. They are presently unarmed; the current organizational structure includes a brigade staff and three battalions:

• 1st Battalion (Operational Support),
• 2nd Battalion (Professional Support), and
• 3rd Battalion (Medical Response Force).

The Medical Response Force is a versatile unit organized in principal to staff Federal Medical Stations, which are deployable healthcare platforms capable of delivering large-scale primary healthcare services. The latest recruiting information I can find shows the MSDF looking for:

1. Persons with prior, honorable military service in any Uniformed Service of the United States (especially those with emergency management, logistics, and/or operations experience)
2. Ordained, ecclesiastically endorsed clergypersons (chaplains)
3. Health services professionals (Chiropractors, Dentists, Optometrists, Physicians, Podiatrists, Psychologists, and Veterinarians as well as Audiologists, Biomedical Laboratory Technologists, Clinical Mental Health Professionals, Dieticians, Health Service Administrators, Nurse Practitioners, Pharmacists, Physical Therapists, Physician Assistants, Public Health Specialists, Occupational Therapists, Registered Nurses, Respiratory Therapists, and Social Workers)
4. Licensed attorneys authorized to practice law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Perhaps in T2K, the Lawyer company can be ordered to charge a machine gun nest armed with subpoenas... :-)

Clearly, at present, the MSDF is not a military-minded organization.

However, at other points in time, such as during WW2 or the Vietnam War when the 26th Yankee Division deployed out of state (and out of country), the MSDF can organize and train militia units to replace the National Guard during times of deployment (which happens by V1 cannon).

There were some interesting bits in the Massachusetts Law, like this one regarding the National Lancers:

Section 4A. The National Lancers shall be organized as the commander-in-chief directs, and may retain its name and the right to wear such distinctive uniform as may be approved by the commander-in-chief, and its ancient privileges, including its method of selecting its officers and conducting its internal affairs, so long as the same are not repugnant to the laws of the commonwealth or of the United States. Said organization may use land and stable facilities belonging to the commonwealth for its activities, equipment and exercises without charge and may receive from the commonwealth, its departments, divisions or bureaus or the federal government, without charge, any surplus equipment, goods, or other materials, as are available, provided that all such equipment, goods and materials remain the property of the commonwealth and are accounted for as such.

The National Lancers were started in 1838 as a local militia organization (two troops, 64 men); they actively served in the American Civil War (part fo the 1st Mass Cavalry) and WW I (dismounted and made part of an MG battalion in the 26th Yankee Division); in WW2, they were again dismounted and made part of a AAA battalion. After WW2, they were officially removed from the National Guard, but were part of the Mass State Guard. They have a 99 year lease on a stable facility on state-owned land; they are allowed by law to state military and stable facilities without charge; they have the right to select their own officers; and to retain their own uniform (designed after Napoleonic Polish Lancer uniforms in flashy red and blue, complete with Czapka). They are used for ceremonial purposes, such as escorting the Governor to Harvard's commencement, escorted JFK to his inauguration, and served as a mounted guard at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

So, I'm picturing a few corrupt fellows seizing the horses and uniforms (plus guns) and parading around a crushed Massachusetts armed with a copy of this section of the law claiming upkeep (at gunpoint if necessary) based on that last sentence. "You're part of the Commonwealth, ain't you? These horses need fodder. So do those troopers. Says right here 'no charge.' Take it up with the Governor. Look, we keep down the bandits - it's tough work. Hey, and is that a real Tommy gun? Yeah, I'll take that, too. Phil, George, shoot him if he moves suddenly. Here, I'll write you out a receipt, and I'll bring it back when the current emergency is over..."

On another note, the recent TV show Dark Skies features a Massachusetts militia unit (formed up in the wake of an alien invasion; the show follows member of the "2nd Mass." The 2nd Mass was formed up last in 1898, and went off to fight in Cuba. (I have no idea if the writer's picked them on purpose because they had really existed...).

As an aside to the aside, in the show, the 2nd Mass is armed as I expect most State Guard units would end up - armed with the tail end of weapons selections from the back of warehouses or collected civilian arms, because the regular toys were already in use. So, various assault rifles, M-16s, M-16EZs, hunting rifles...

Another interesting point of Law was this one about the duties of the militia:

Section 41. In case of a tumult, riot, mob or body of persons acting together by force to violate or resist the laws of the commonwealth, or when such tumult, riot or mob is threatened, or in case of public catastrophe or natural disaster, and the usual police provisions are inadequate to preserve order and afford protection to persons and property, and the fact appears to the commander-in-chief, to the sheriff of a county, to the mayor or city manager of a city or to the selectmen of a town, the commander-in-chief, upon his initiative or at the request of such sheriff, mayor or city manager or selectmen, may issue his order directed to the commander of any organization or unit of the armed forces of the commonwealth directing him to order his command, or any part thereof, to appear at a time and place therein specified to aid the civil authority in suppressing such violations, preserving order, affording such protection and supporting the laws.

So, a local Board of Selectmen (say of my home town of Medway) could call out a town militia and order them to seize the breakaway region of East Medway (called by its residents the town of Millis since 1885)… I'd say 130 years of separatist rebellion is quite riot and tumult enough!

(And you though we were all staid liberals in the Northeast.)

Then there was this bit about armories:

Section 129. Except as provided in section one hundred and thirty, no body of men shall maintain an armory or associate together as a company or organization for drill or parade with firearms, or so drill or parade, except the armed forces of the United States, the armed forces of the commonwealth, and, the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts;

Other than bringing to mind the interesting quibble about where is the line between "large gun collection" and "armory," this sure sounds like the National Lancers can run around collecting arms and ammunition in private hands. As long as they avoid actual Federal or state military units....

At any rate, if you have some spare time, you can amuse yourself by looking up your state's militia laws. You may even come up with a game idea based on some of your local wrinkles...

Uncle Ted

[Targan]

Originally Posted by RN7

The State Guard would also be a fertile recruitment ground for New America or other extreme right wing groups in certain areas, due to the fact that the State Guard are going to be drawn in the main from the White ethnic group with conservative or prejudice views. I could see many existent State Guard forces in Civgov areas being influenced or in cahoots with the local New American cell.

^This seems very likely to me too.

[Webstral]

The issue of the legal standing of the militia is a fascinating one. I think ultimately it may take the judiciary. There’s a corpus of law with contradictory ideas, along with some ideas that make no sense at all but which have standing because challenging said nonsense ideas would mean hurting a number of different interests. The federal government’s argument is in keeping with the first modification to the states’ militia back in the 1790’s. The states’ counterargument also aligns predictably with their perceived interests.


I think an important aspect of the discussion is addressing what the militia were intended to do when the Constitution was ratified. I agree completely, swaghauler, that one of the two original missions of the states’ militia was as a strategic counterbalance against the emergence of a domestic despot controlling the professional military. In my mind, this is beyond question. Of course, the judiciary has final say. If the federal chief executive is at the top of the militia chain of command, as is the case with the National Guard, then the psychological factors that make the professional force susceptible to being the arm of domestic tyranny apply to the National Guard as well. In order to counterbalance the professional force, states’ militia must belong to the states and only the states.


Of course, this is all academic. In order to counterbalance the stupendously powerful professional forces of the federal government, states’ militia would have to have massive manpower. I would think no less than 10 million would suffice. Realistically, it would probably take 15-20 million militiamen with small arms to counterbalance the professional force. I don’t foresee this kind of force ever coming into being.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Of course, this is all academic. In order to counterbalance the stupendously powerful professional forces of the federal government, states’ militia would have to have massive manpower. I would think no less than 10 million would suffice. Realistically, it would probably take 15-20 million militiamen with small arms to counterbalance the professional force. I don’t foresee this kind of force ever coming into being.

I recall being very firmly instructed by another member of this forum that for the purposes of "correctly" interpreting the 2nd Amendment, every adult member of the populace with a firearm is to be automatically considered to be a member of the militia. I think that would give you somewhat more than the 10 million warm bodies you're looking for.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Targan

I recall being very firmly instructed by another member of this forum that for the purposes of "correctly" interpreting the 2nd Amendment, every adult member of the populace with a firearm is to be automatically considered to be a member of the militia. I think that would give you somewhat more than the 10 million warm bodies you're looking for.

I personally think the 2nd Amendment is obsolete, and it became so in 1903 with the formation of the National Guard. The 2nd Amendment itself needs an Amendment that more clearly defines the right to ownership of personal weapons -- as written now, you can't blame people for thinking the militia part doesn't apply anymore, because it doesn't anymore.

And don't flame me. It's a personal opinion. I'm definitely not an anti-gun nut (I consider myself an "Enlightened Democrat"), but I'm definitely not a gun nut either. There are both out there, ranging from those who want to ban all firearms ownership to the NRA.