Bill would create paramilitary group in Montana

[Zap!]

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — A Republican legislator said Friday that Montana needs an armed paramilitary group of volunteers to help authorities in emergencies, a proposal favored by gun rights advocates and conservative lawmakers skeptical of the federal government.
Rep. Wendy Warburton, of Havre, told the House State Administration Committee that House Bill 278 would let residents organize military-like companies called "home guards" that would answer to the governor and sheriffs during emergencies.

Read more... (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Bill-would-create-paramilitary-group-in-Montana-997076.php)

Ladies and gentleman, we have a Senate candidate for 2012. :)

[juvanya]

that would answer to the governor and sheriffs during emergencies.

You trust this ?

[cindy25]

sounds fascist

[muzzled dogg]

You trust this ?

As opposed to a top-down national guard-type organization consisting of members from other states and communities who take marching orders from Washington?

[Pericles]

Such as this?

Sec. 431.112. CALLING OF FORCES BY OTHER OFFICIAL. If military aid is immediately and urgently necessary to prevent or suppress violence under Section 431.111(c) and it is impracticable to secure the aid in time by order of the governor, the district judge of the judicial district, the sheriff of the county, or the mayor of the municipality in which the disturbance occurs may call for aid on the commanding officer of the state military forces stationed in the judicial district, county, or municipality or an adjacent judicial district, county, or municipality. The officer must make the call in writing and shall immediately notify the governor of the action.

Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 147, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.



Sec. 431.113. DUTY OF COMMANDING OFFICER. (a) On receipt of a call under this subchapter, a commanding officer immediately shall order the called forces under the officer's command to parade at the time and place appointed and shall notify the governor of the action.
(b) After the forces have appeared at the appointed place, the commanding officer shall obey and execute the general instructions of the civil authorities charged by law with the suppression of riot or tumult or the preservation of public peace. The instructions must be in writing, except that if written instructions are impracticable the instructions must be given verbally in the presence of two or more credible witnesses. The commanding officer is solely responsible for determining the kind and extent of force to be used and the method of implementing the instructions.

Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 147, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.

[Zap!]

You trust this ?

The feds are against it and have no power to give orders to the proposed militia, so yes I trust it, providing Montana has a governor that we can trust.

[juvanya]

providing Montana has a governor that we can trust.

Thats a lot to bank on :P

[Freedom 4 all]

You trust this ?

Not entirely, but it's certainly better than the alternative.

[erowe1]

Do they not already have that?

Here in Indiana, our state constitution defines every able-bodied male in the state of a certain age range to be part of our militia.

[pcosmar]

You trust this ?

That is how it should be. Then disband the State Police and most police Depts as unnecessary.

[pcosmar]

The feds are against it and have no power to give orders to the proposed militia, so yes I trust it, providing Montana has a governor that we can trust.

Is Chuck Baldwin running?
;)

[Zap!]

Do they not already have that?

Here in Indiana, our state constitution defines every able-bodied male in the state of a certain age range to be part of our militia.

The National Guard can be taken over by the feds. This one can't.

[erowe1]

The National Guard can be taken over by the feds. This one can't.

I'm not talking about the National Guard. I'm talking about the militia.

Here's what the Indiana Constitution says. I guess I assumed other states (especially states like Montana) had similar things.
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/const/art12.html

Information Maintained by the Office of Code Revision Indiana Legislative Services Agency
ARTICLE 12.

Militia.

Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.
(History: As Amended November 3, 1936; November 5, 1974).
Section 2. The Governor is Commander-in-Chief of the militia and other military forces of this state.
(History: As Amended November 5, 1974).
Section 3. There shall be an Adjutant General, who shall be appointed by the Governor.
(History: As Amended November 5, 1974).
Section 4. No person, conscientiously opposed to bearing arms, shall be compelled to do so in the militia.
(History: As Amended November 5, 1974).
Section 5.
(History: Repealed November 5, 1974).
Section 6.
(History: Repealed November 5, 1974).

[Zap!]

I'm not talking about the National Guard. I'm talking about the militia.

Are you positive it's not the National Guard? I only ask because state militia is also another word for National Guard.

[pcosmar]

Are you positive it's not the National Guard? I only ask because state militia is also another word for National Guard.

Only in the twisted Bizzaro world of politics.

There were "laws" written to neuter the concept of militia.

[erowe1]

Are you positive it's not the National Guard? I only ask because state militia is also another word for National Guard.

I don't think so, since it defines it as all persons over 17 except those provided legal exceptions. As I read it, it declares me part of the militia, even though I've never joined the National Guard.

[osan]

Do they not already have that?

Here in Indiana, our state constitution defines every able-bodied male in the state of a certain age range to be part of our militia.

Fine. Get your boys together, acquire a pair of 155s, some 20mm, SAWs, etc. without the various federal forms and see how far that gets you. The dictators don't give a rat's ass what any of the constitutions say if it conflicts with their agendas. They "interpret" them so suit their designs. Anyone flying in the face of those interpretations (AKA "policies") are welcomed to a comfy cell or a cozy coffin.

You can't be serious.

[osan]

That is how it should be. Then disband the State Police and most police Depts as unnecessary.

A wet dream in all probability, but something nice toward which one might work.

Why are "most" PDs not necessary and not all? I cannot imagine how a PD would be necessary. We have sheriffs. Replacing PDs with "Office of Criminal Investigations" might be useful, though. Crimes do need investigation, oftentimes. One absolute stipulation there: NO power to arrest beyond that of any other citizen. OTOH, the same should be so for the sheriffs as well. No powers over individual rights, save in the few and VERY narrowly defined circumstances.

Furthermore, no sheriff may serve either more than 1 4-year term or 2 3-year terms. Ever. For any reason. Same for deputies. Max. 6 years on that job and then you go find something else to do. No career politics of any form ever, not even city dog catcher. Professional politics and the pestilence it brings is one of the central reasons this nation is in the toilet. Remove it in perpetuity. I would also provide for the possibility of the death penalty for any elected official convicted of violating the public trust, and not less than 10 years hard labor, the sentence to be extended with uncooperative inmates. Don't want to make little rocks from big? Fine. How about another 10 years? We can add more, so get hammering, asshole. :)

[osan]

Are you positive it's not the National Guard? I only ask because state militia is also another word for National Guard.


How wrong you are. NG has NOTHING to do with the militia. NG is just another branch of the military when it comes down to brass tacks.

[erowe1]

Fine. Get your boys together, acquire a pair of 155s, some 20mm, SAWs, etc. without the various federal forms and see how far that gets you. The dictators don't give a rat's ass what any of the constitutions say if it conflicts with their agendas. They "interpret" them so suit their designs. Anyone flying in the face of those interpretations (AKA "policies") are welcomed to a comfy cell or a cozy coffin.

You can't be serious.

Ohhhh. So, since the dictators don't care what the constitutions say, what we need to do is pass laws. Surely they'll pay closer attention to those laws than they do the constitutions.

[Pericles]

Are you positive it's not the National Guard? I only ask because state militia is also another word for National Guard.
REPORT of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

of the UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS Second Session

February 1982
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary


That the National Guard is not the "Militia" referred to in the second amendment is even clearer today. Congress has organized the National Guard under its power to "raise and support armies" and not its power to "Provide for the organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia". This Congress chose to do in the interests of organizing reserve military units which were not limited in deployment by the strictures of our power over the constitutional militia, which can be called forth only "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C. Sec. 311(a).
(65. H.R. Report No. 141, 73d Cong., 1st sess. at 2-5 (1933).)

[Zap!]

How wrong you are. NG has NOTHING to do with the militia. NG is just another branch of the military when it comes down to brass tacks.

I'm not wrong, because that's what they call the NG these days. I don't agree with them, but they refer to them as a state militia that can be taken over by the feds if necessary.

[Pericles]

I'm not wrong, because that's what they call the NG these days. I don't agree with them, but they refer to them as a state militia that can be taken over by the feds if necessary.

No - in addition to the material I posted above, any discussion of the role of the National Guard has to also be in context of the Dick Act of 1903 which transferred the organized militia into the National Guard, with all equipment of the National Guard remaining federal property. And as Perpich v. DoD made clear, the National Guard belongs to the federal government and the states may use it when not needed by the federal government.