NC House Dems making changes to the NC General Statutes on Militia

[GunnyFreedom]

I am jammed, if anybody has time to look over the following bill and let me know what exactly they are trying to do here I'd owe you big. Session is not until 3PM (almost 4 hrs away) but I'm jammed with meetings until then. It won't come for a vote today anyway so it's not mission critical, but I'd sure like to be able to talk to Ross and Martin about what they are accomplishing here, and it may give me a leg up if this comes to Military, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs committee...

Reference:
http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=H250

Bill:
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2011/Bills/House/HTML/H250v0.html

[Cowlesy]

Gunny needs some help. I wish i could but I am just hit'n run visiting today while at work.

Can anyone get to work on this?

[specsaregood]

Gunny needs some help. I wish i could but I am just hit'n run visiting today while at work.

Can anyone get to work on this?

I'm no expert, but it appears to just be clarifying edits, being more specific removing pronouns and such.

[aGameOfThrones]

Changing words impact the way judges interpret the statutes.

Excerpt from the Bill:

§ 127A‑6. Organized militia; historic military commands.

Historic military commands are those historic groups which remain active by meeting at least once a month and which follow military procedures. Only such groups as may be designated by the Governor shall fall within this branch of the militia. Any maximum age limits prescribed by this Chapter shall not be applicable do not apply to members of historic military commands.

[GunnyFreedom]

Thanks, it looks like the section that aGameOfThrones picked out would have the effect of requiring all reinactment groups to receive permission from the Governor! :eek:

That's just the reinactors, imagine how tough it would be to be in an actual Constitutional militia...

I'm leaning 'no' for sure, but I just don't want to miss something big in the bill for lack of time.

[specsaregood]

Thanks, it looks like the section that aGameOfThrones picked out would have the effect of requiring all reinactment groups to receive permission from the Governor! :eek:


But the changes proposed there, do they change the meaning? Or are you talking about the whole thing, not just the edits?

[hazek]

Just from reading the first 6 points this bill IMO is nothing but a power grab. It eliminates all the broadness of the previous bill on militia and specifies who they are exactly and that's only groups approved by the governor and who they answer to exactly and that's only the governor. I'm going read through all of it, but from my initial impression if it were me, I'd vote strongly against it.

[erowe1]

The only thing I saw in there that looked like it might have been the ideological motivation was the change to gender-inclusive language (so that it no longer calls Bev Perdue "he," for example).

It might be that that was the instigating factor and that they figured they might as well modernize the syntax of it throughout, while they were doing that.

[GunnyFreedom]

But the changes proposed there, do they change the meaning? Or are you talking about the whole thing, not just the edits?

The changes ARE the bill, and it looks like everywhere those edits affect the meaning, it is to constrict our rights. So no way am I going to support that. I just wonder whether this was unintential created by 'unseen bias' or whether the edits were purposeful...

In any case, I am preparing a case to argue in committee and on the floor.

[hazek]

And I think it's also removing the "unofficialness" of the militia and is adding them to the official military forces of the State and the United States which is also disturbing.

I see this in all the lower case names being replaced by upper names. Example right of the bat:

"§ 127A‑3. Organized militia; National Guard.

The North Carolina National Guard, both army and air, Army and Air, shall consist of regularly commissioned, warrant and enlisted personnel

[Anti Federalist]

Here's something positive in the bill:


127A‑49. Special courts‑martial; appointments, power and authority.
(3)....
Except as to commissioned officers, such special courts‑martial shall have the power and authority to try any person subject to military law military personnel of the North Carolina National Guard for any crimes or offenses within the jurisdiction of a general military court.

My reading of this indicates a change from a Courts Martial being able to try anybody under military command (which will be all of during a period of martial law) to only military personnel.

And I'm not sure that the first section mentioned applies to re-enactors.

I'm thinking that applies more toward a retired but still active command of discharged veterans.

I'd get clarification from the authors on that.

[TonySutton]

Does NC have a provision requiring bills to be in plain language?

[Acala]

I don't see anything substantive except for 127A-139(c), which deletes some named organizations and replaces them with generic descriptions.

In some places generic terms such as "armed forces" and "military service" were made to specify "Armed Forces of the United States". I assume this was the original intent, but it "could" be a narrowing of the original language. Which is probably a good thing.

[Anti Federalist]

Does NC have a provision requiring bills to be in plain language?

LoL I thought the same thing myself.

I've looked at a couple of bills for Gunny, and have come away thinking there is no worse examples of legal mumbo jumbo out there.

[hazek]

Some of the changes are ok thought but they are merely cosmetic in which they update the outdated with modern language.

[Acala]

Changing words impact the way judges interpret the statutes.

Excerpt from the Bill:

§ 127A‑6. Organized militia; historic military commands.

Historic military commands are those historic groups which remain active by meeting at least once a month and which follow military procedures. Only such groups as may be designated by the Governor shall fall within this branch of the militia. Any maximum age limits prescribed by this Chapter shall not be applicable do not apply to members of historic military commands.

This is not a substantive change.

[hazek]

This clause is raising al kinds of red flags in my mind but I don't exactly know if the old or new version differs at all:

"§ 127A‑17. Commander in chief to prescribe regulations.

[hazek]

What's the difference between:

The commander in chief shall have the power and it shall be his duty from time to time to issue such orders and to prescribe such regulations relating to the organized and unorganized militia as will cause the same at all times to conform to the federal requirements of the United States government relating thereto.

And:

The commander in chief shall have the power and the duty, from time to time, to issue orders and to prescribe regulations relating to the organized and unorganized militia that are necessary for the militia at all times to conform to the federal requirements of the United States government relating thereto.


???

[erowe1]

What's the difference between:

The commander in chief shall have the power and it shall be his duty from time to time to issue such orders and to prescribe such regulations relating to the organized and unorganized militia as will cause the same at all times to conform to the federal requirements of the United States government relating thereto.

And:

The commander in chief shall have the power and the duty, from time to time, to issue orders and to prescribe regulations relating to the organized and unorganized militia that are necessary for the militia at all times to conform to the federal requirements of the United States government relating thereto.


???

Gender neutrality.

[hazek]

Here's something positive in the bill:



My reading of this indicates a change from a Courts Martial being able to try anybody under military command (which will be all of during a period of martial law) to only military personnel.

And I'm not sure that the first section mentioned applies to re-enactors.

I'm thinking that applies more toward a retired but still active command of discharged veterans.

I'd get clarification from the authors on that.

Yep I read it the same and I also think it's an improvement.

[hazek]

Actually it seems like the bill is ok, it only got it's language modernized and made gender neutral. Aside from lower case and upper changes I don't see any other red flags.

[GunnyFreedom]

Man, this is just awesome! I also have a hard time believing that a Dem bill on militia is not a disaster, but it is what it is. Maybe they are trying to court the NC Tea Parties? lol

Off to session in minutes. Thanks a million!

[erowe1]

Man, this is just awesome! I also have a hard time believing that a Dem bill on militia is not a disaster, but it is what it is. Maybe they are trying to court the NC Tea Parties? lol

Off to session in minutes. Thanks a million!

Is there precedent for changing the statutes with these sorts of seemingly innocuous changes? If so, then maybe this militia section was just the next part they got to. If not, then why all of a sudden do it, and why start here?

I wouldn't be surprised if there is precedent. But if there's not, it seems strange.

[osan]

The changes appear to be stylistic in their general nature. I don't get it - if the statutes were good as written, why change them?



I am jammed, if anybody has time to look over the following bill and let me know what exactly they are trying to do here I'd owe you big. Session is not until 3PM (almost 4 hrs away) but I'm jammed with meetings until then. It won't come for a vote today anyway so it's not mission critical, but I'd sure like to be able to talk to Ross and Martin about what they are accomplishing here, and it may give me a leg up if this comes to Military, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs committee...

Reference:
http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=H250

Bill:
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2011/Bills/House/HTML/H250v0.html

[Vessol]

Good luck Gunny, destroy this bullshit!

The Dems raising anything about Militias is going to be bad.

Make sure you talk about the reanactors. It seems a silly minor issue, but a lot of those in NC are a big fan of reenactments and they have a fairly large community here.

[Pericles]

Article 1 - removes Governor discretion on provisions of the State Forces and requires stricter definitions as specified by the legislative branch.

Article 2 - Requires Governor to conform the militia (even state forces) to federal guidelines.

Article 3 - National Guard provisions - clean up language such s replacing "shall" with "will"

Article 4 - Same as Article 3 for the Naval Militia

Article 5 - Cleans up language removing discretionary meaning, replacing with mandatory actions.

Article 6 - Call up of unorganized militia language clean up.

Article 7 - more language clean up to use current terms such as changing US armed forces to Armed Forces of the United States

Article 8 - language clean up.

Article 9 - language clean up.

Article 10 - language clean up.

Article 11 - language clean up.

Article 12 - ditto

Article 13 - ditto

Article 14 - ditto

Article 15 - ditto

Summary - NC has a better militia law than Texas - this gives the legislature power to require the Governor to take the actions (if any) mandated by the legislature.

The basic structure is in place to revitalize the NC state militia.

Re-enactors would be a separate issue - under prohibited organizations, which there are none in this section of the militia law (like there are in Texas).

This language - § 127A‑10. Corps entitled to retain privileges. Any corps of artillery, cavalry, or infantry existing in the State on the passage of the act of Congress of May 8, 1792, which by the laws, customs, or usages of the State has been in continuous existence since the passage of such that act, under its provisions and under the provisions of section 232 and sections 1625 to 1660, both inclusive, of Title 16 of the revised statutes of 1873 and the act of Congress of January 21, 1903, relating to the militia, shall be allowed to retain its ancient privileges, subject, nevertheless, to all duties required by law of the militia; but such these organizations may be a part of the North Carolina National Guard, and entitled to all the privileges of this Chapter, and shall conform in all respects to the organization, discipline, and training of the North Carolina National Guard in time of war. For purposes of training and when on active duty in the service of the United States they may be assigned to higher units, as the President may direct, and shall be subject to the orders of officers under whom they shall be serving.


Mirrors the federal Dick Act of 1903 which created the National Guard - and that language should go in order to allow citizens to form their own units to be incorporated into the state forces.

[devil21]

First thought is they are trying to dumb down or modernize the english. Legal terms are being replaced with common english. Why?

I didn't see anything else that stood out.

[erowe1]

The changes appear to be stylistic in their general nature. I don't get it - if the statutes were good as written, why change them?

Some people are genuinely offended by noninclusive language (or at least they act like they are). That's why I think that might have been the motivating factor, and that the rest of the stylistic changes were just things that they just thought they might as well do while they're at it.

[GunnyFreedom]

If it's overall better than worse I may sign on as a cosponsor to try and earn some good-will. I wouldn't consider it if it made things worse, the consensus seems to be mostly stylistic with at least one spot that is being made better. Is that true?

I'll also read it in depth myself, but time is running out to cosponsor.

[Acala]

I don't see any problem with it.

[sirgonzo420]

LoL I thought the same thing myself.

I've looked at a couple of bills for Gunny, and have come away thinking there is no worse examples of legal mumbo jumbo out there.

Obviously you've never spent any time reading Title 26 of the United States Code...

lol

[Pericles]

Co sponsor - you might be able to suggest a "minor change" or two.