There are two basic kinds of militias — State Defense Forces (also known as State Guards, State Military Reserves or State Militias) and Naval Militias. These forces are distinct from their state's National Guard in that they cannot be mobilized for federal service and they are not funded by the federal government.
Just curious, do folks in the Nat Guard get pay/benefits/retirement for being in the Nat Guard? What would becoming a state militia change both for them personally, and for the state? Thank you.
Congress has the right to call up an army, they can deploy the federalized national guard, they have added the right to require that State's maintain a State Defense (separate from the State's National Guard). but the Federal govt cannot deploy a federalized unit of the national guard to a State they don't recognize their nat guard.
Crowder discussed this a few days ago. "a well regulated Militia...the right of the people to keep and bear arms" -- noting that the clause "being necessary to the security of a free State" does not define Militia. Militia comprises "the people."
There are two basic kinds of militias — State Defense Forces (also known as State Guards, State Military Reserves or State Militias) and Naval Militias. These forces are distinct from their state's National Guard in that they cannot be mobilized for federal service and they are not funded by the federal government.
Sounds like Oklahoma got a better deal.
Just curious, do folks in the Nat Guard get pay/benefits/retirement for being in the Nat Guard? What would becoming a state militia change both for them personally, and for the state? Thank you.
They deserve everything for protecting their state....
I agree. I just don’t know what will change and was curious.
Feds need to relinquish all lands held there as well.
They don't own any land in oklahoma to speak, of.
Fort Sill...
True but nothing like most western states.
The issue there is that another national guard force could come in and claim federal status and tell the locals to stand down... :(
Congress has the right to call up an army, they can deploy the federalized national guard, they have added the right to require that State's maintain a State Defense (separate from the State's National Guard). but the Federal govt cannot deploy a federalized unit of the national guard to a State they don't recognize their nat guard.
Anybody else think of drops 1 & 22?
Sounds like a WIN to me.
The distrusting cynic in me has a question:
Will that be deemed to be the Militia securing the free State and no others will be permitted to keep and bear arms?
That is the main problem with all this Q stuff. I now see a downside in every new fact I come across!
Crowder discussed this a few days ago. "a well regulated Militia...the right of the people to keep and bear arms" -- noting that the clause "being necessary to the security of a free State" does not define Militia. Militia comprises "the people."