From: James Rogers (jamesr@best.com)
Date: Thu Sep 21 2000 - 05:31:45 MDT
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Michael Lorrey wrote:
>
> I am glad, Joe, that you do recognise the difference between the National Guard
> (which, being nationalized, is no longer a militia formed of the enfranchised
> members of a community) and the militia. While Title X of the US code does
> define the difference between the organized and unorganized militia, it does not
> deal with the issue of National Guard units that are not under the direct
> command of state Governors, but under the US Army, and which act as little more
> than Army reserve units.
The Supreme Court made the explicit determination in a couple of cases that
the National Guard does not constitute the militia, at least not in the
context of the second amendment. The state National Guard is to be
construed as nothing more than an effective extension of the Federal
military, with the primary difference being that the State is the official
employer of National Guardsmen, whereas regular military reserve units are
employees of the Federal government. Regardless of employment, both NG
and Reserve units have been ruled to be under Federal command for most
intents and purposes.
-James Rogers
jamesr@best.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:06 MST