Re: GUNS: Why here?

From: Joe Dees (joedees@addall.com)
Date: Thu Sep 21 2000 - 17:04:03 MDT

('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is) >From: James Rogers <jamesr@best.com>
>To: extropians@extropy.org
>Subject: Re: GUNS: Why here?
>Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 04:31:45 -0700
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
>
>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.
>
Actually, they are under default state control, as when they are called out to deal with natural disasters within a state, but the option of nationalizing control is always present, as happened in the south to enforce integration of the school system over the objections of some state governors. A friend of mine in a critical rating was called up to serve in Desert Storm. Also, the members of the national guard are restricted to able bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45, which would be in conflict with the idea that the 'well-regulated militia' included everyone. Of course, since there has been an ameliorization of sexual and age discrimination since that law passed, it is perhaps obsolete now, and the distinction moot.
>
>-James Rogers
> jamesr@best.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:06 MST