Other State Virginia National Guard responds after Democratic lawmaker suggests it may be needed to enforce gun control measures

[WoodsPlinker]

As a possible comparison, can you envision calling up the Guard to close down or protect abortion clinics??

Hoo boy, controversial topic. I'm an evictionist, which is a concept a pro life economist came up with because he realized his side was losing and wanted a compromise to save more babies lives.

Evictionism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

As someone who thinks of the government as a tool people use to oppress their neighbors, that isn't very neighborly of an activity, no.... I'd never use the government as a weapon against my neighbor, even if our morals are incompatible. Weapons should only be used in self defense.

 

[zenbreath]

If it comes to a mobilization order, a lot will depend on who pays the VA NG bills.

Back in the 80s, President Reagan was sending NG units to Honduras to build air strips to assist the Contras. The Gov of Oregon declined to send OR NG troops because OR NG was funded by Salem, not DC.

 

[Brownsalamander]

Hoo boy, controversial topic. I'm an evictionist, which is a concept a pro life economist came up with because he realized his side was losing and wanted a compromise to save more babies lives.

Evictionism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

As someone who thinks of the government as a tool people use to oppress their neighbors, that isn't very neighborly of an activity, no.... I'd never use the government as a weapon against my neighbor, even if our morals are incompatible. Weapons should only be used in self defense.

In reference to the topic at hand, "self defense" is subjective. If the VA NG is activated, and Northrop acts on tyrannous acts (even more so than activating the NG such as stated at approximately 9:00

.....then offensive unconventional use of arms as a "preliminary" act of self defense would be in order, and likely needed to make a point.

 

[titsonritz]

Actually, it's a demonstrable fact that MOST politicians don't know sheite about ANYTHING.

They keep their sheite up and they're gonna learn the hard way.

 

[awshoot]

... heads stuffed so deeply into their own backsides they can carve their initials into next weeks turd. ...

oh man -- too good. TOO GOOD! ;-)

 

[gmerkt]

My point is guard units like all units have a specialty. It might be a combat unit, but it also could be a communications unit or air wing. Not all would have specific fighting capabilities or even remember the dangerous end of an M4.

Of the two reserve components of the US Army, the National Guard and the US Army Reserve, it is the Guard which has more combat arms elements including the infantry divisions. It is the US Army Reserve that has a preponderance of support and service support units. Some of which specialties the active army uses infrequently but they retain them in the USAR in case of need so they are more closely held than if they were assigned to the Guard.

Back in the 80s, President Reagan was sending NG units to Honduras to build air strips to assist the Contras. The Gov of Oregon declined to send OR NG troops because OR NG was funded by Salem, not DC.

Some Dem. politicians opposed Ore. Guard people going to Honduras but I thought Gov. Atiyeh (R) it was okay with it. In any case, it wasn't about funding because the federal government pays about 90% of the bill for active and inactive duty training (AT and weekend drill). The small part that the states pay typically involves facilities such as armories and some sundry small expenses. Including some state AD salaries, which are largely executive. The feds pay all the military pay, all the equipment such as aircraft, vehicles, weapons, ammunition, fuel, clothing, military supplies and the rest. The feds also pay for the NG Technicians and AGR people who keep the units running on a day to day basis. The states get a real bargain on this but the feds get a ready pool of federal manpower when they need it. A relationship and funding history that some governors conveniently seem to forget.

As a result of governors' brouhaha over Honduras, the Montgomery Amendment to the 1987 Defense Authorization Act, which was upheld by the US Supreme Court, limited refusal by governors to allow federalization of Guard units. With exception if federalization would interfere with state emergency operations. It's still controversial. Jerry Brown of California allowed some of the CA ARNG people to do border duty in 2018 with some language that it was about law enforcement, not immigration control. But in 2019, newly elected Gov. Newsom pulled them out. To keep within the spirit of the Montgomery Act, he said he was redeploying them to fire fighting duty and against drug cartels within the state.

Separate thought. Seems like somebody above referred to a state Adjutant General as "part time." They are not. Typically they are on full-time state active duty. There are other state employees who run a typical state military department. Some have state schedule salaries, others wear uniforms and may or may not draw state AD pay comparable to their rank. Not all uniformed state AD employees have federal recognition for their rank. These employees are mostly in the HQ of the military department. There are also some federal employees working in state HQ. Out in the various Guard units, those full-time employees who keep things going between drill assemblies are federal employees. Some are National Guard Technicians who are civil service employees in excepted positions who are required to be Guard members. Others may be AGR, which is Active Guard and Reserve, these are active military members, often Guard members who agree to go on a fixed tour of years to work full-time. Oh, and there is a sprinkling of active US Army advisors who are not controlled by the Guard but by the army. Overseers, you might say.

The Guard is a weird, political animal which can be confusing and difficult to understand.

 

[coop44]

As a dyslexic, I read that sentence as "lexidyxics are people too, you know."
Untied fronts tend to be more effective than tied ones.
When I read McEachin's quote, I think about all the state statutes I read helping my ex through law school. They were replete with idiocy, and it seems McEachin is of the same ilk.

Jeri Ryan needs a little help getting her front untied too.

wait a minute, her tied front is actually pretty effective!

 

[rfmjchp]

I was in the California Army National Guard from 1975-83, honorable discharge as E-7/SFC, 95B-Military Police. I was activated 2 times for law enforcement duty. A fire in Santa Barbara County and floods in Riverside County. When activated under state law, any guardsman assigned to a MP or Security Police, now Security Forces, unit can be designated an Peace Officer, depending on their deployment orders. Puts them on the same level as Highway Patrol, City PDs and Sheriff's Departments. But, during my time, infantry, armor, etc could not be designated as peace officers. Once you hang that P.O. designation, you had to go through a 40 hour course in Arrest, Search & Seizure and Use of Deadly Force - a state law. But we had equivalent training in those subjects through our military training.

True Story - 4 months after I joined, we went to the range for rifle quals - M-16. Came back to the Armory and joined a group at one of the weapons cleaning tables. Started disassembly as taught in Air Force (67-71 Security Police active duty, 1 Southeast Asia tour & later 16 mths AFReserve SP). After a few moments I looked around and several of them were watching me. A SSgt (last year of 6, no active duty) asked where did I learn that. I had disassembled the bolt carrier group for cleaning and that was what stopped them. I told him Air Force Security u Police. His response was, and I remember it to this day, "They told us not to do that, it ruins the head spacing".

My unit was lucky. Out of 164 authorized with about 130 filed, we had between 30-35 civilian law enforcement and about the same number of prior service. So we probably would have been all right. And most of the LEOs were also prior service. But the units now a days are much better for the reasons given by an earlier poster.

 

[Dan Adams]

Kent State, May 4, 1970, lest we forget what can happen. When people tell me the government won't turn on its citizens, I suggest they look up the event, as well as many others surrounding that date.

 

[MarshalChillN]

Actually, it's a demonstrable fact that MOST politicians don't know sheite about ANYTHING.

@Stomper actually they DO KNOW how to fleece their constituence

 

[3MTA3]

Things are getting a bit more interesting:
Virginia county to fund militia, per US Constitution, in wake of Democrats' gun-control agenda


"Amid dozens of Virginia counties declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries in case the state enacts strict gun-control measures next year, Tazewell County joined in — and took a big extra step.

In addition to passing a resolution declaring the county a Second Amendment sanctuary, the Tazewell County Board of Supervisors on Dec. 3 also passed a resolution underscoring the right to a well-funded and regulated militia as described in the U.S. Constitution and the commonwealth's constitution, WJHL-TV reported.

And even though Democrats outnumber Republicans 3-2 on the board, both resolutions passed unanimously, the station said. ..." More at link above

 

[titsonritz]

View attachment 642175

Jeri Ryan needs a little help getting her front untied too.

wait a minute, her tied front is actually pretty effective!

Not sure how 7 of 9 plays into all this, but sign me up.

 

[nwslopoke]

Not sure how 7 of 9 plays into all this, but sign me up.

One would think the Borg were more liberal leaning. Being brought into the collective. A bot with no individuality...

 

[Defense Minister]

Another instance of Democrats using an armed contingency to enforce their political agenda just like Oregon did by using OSP to try and round up Republican senators to make a quorum. They will stop at NOTHING to force those who resist into their ideology.

Folks, we are living in dangerous times...

 

[gmerkt]

It has happened that since 1957, the federal government has activated National Guard units for domestic federal service. It is rare, only done ten times, last time being the second Watts riot in 1992. There are a couple of federal laws on the books that permit this. Just as there are limits to the controversial practice of using federal forces for domestic law enforcement. We all have read about the perceived militarization of police agencies in the US and the push-back against it. This is an issue that gets a lot of attention on the left. And it may just be some of those people who on principle might oppose using Guard units (whether they be under state or federal control) to enforce domestic gun laws.

Public opinion can be fickle. When a city is going up in flames and there is riot in the streets, using federal forces domestically to quell a major riot isn't questioned. Yet when it comes to using peaceful means of controlling a border, there is a lot of opposition.

 

[zenbreath]

As long as everyone keeps cool heads, the GOP will be able to 'Party like its 1994'.

 

[Stomper]

View attachment 642175

Jeri Ryan needs a little help getting her front untied too.

wait a minute, her tied front is actually pretty effective!

Not sure how 7 of 9 plays into all this, but sign me up.

Now THAT is what you call an "outboard motorboat"......

 

[gmerkt]

I was in the California Army National Guard from 1975-83, honorable discharge as E-7/SFC, 95B-Military Police. I was activated 2 times for law enforcement duty. A fire in Santa Barbara County and floods in Riverside County. When activated under state law, any guardsman assigned to a MP or Security Police, now Security Forces, unit can be designated an Peace Officer, depending on their deployment orders. Puts them on the same level as Highway Patrol, City PDs and Sheriff's Departments. But, during my time, infantry, armor, etc could not be designated as peace officers. Once you hang that P.O. designation, you had to go through a 40 hour course in Arrest, Search & Seizure and Use of Deadly Force - a state law. But we had equivalent training in those subjects through our military training.

Interesting comments re. MP Guardsmen assuming peace officer status (depending). I wasn't aware of this.

In the immediate years following the first Watts Riot, there was a lot of thought -- and repeated changing of minds -- as to what kind and how much riot control training that Guardsmen should have. As time passed from the Watts riot, policy makers kinda throttled back on the concept -- and the training. For non-MP Guardsmen, that is. In the 1970's, I remember seeing riot control gear on unit property books but I cannot recall which ones.

If you draw a horizontal line midway through the State of California, the population split between north and south is approximately 35% to 65%. The pop. bias to the south dictates a greater strength disposition to National Guard units in that region. For a couple of decades following WW2, Calif. had the 49th Inf. Div. in the north and the 40th Inf. Div. in the south. Both divisions were broken up in 1968, but the 40th was reformed in Jan. 1974 (with one brigade out of San Jose). The 49th was never resurrected as an infantry division. The population in the southern Calif. area, it was felt, was sufficient to support recruiting and retention efforts for a division. During this same time that rfmjchp refers to, as I recall there were several military police battalions in the north. Later still, the lineage of the 49th was brought back as a separate MP brigade which exists today. I don't know for a fact, but I believe creating an over-hang of military police formations in the CA ARNG may have been an outgrowth of the experience of the first Watts riot. There was no room on TO&E for MP battalions in the south, but they filled out the north with them. Which could be moved south if needed. The MP units from the north were more likely to be used in the south, so activating Guard members who were LEO's wouldn't put undue stress on police organizations in the south. And this was exactly the scenario in 1992 when the 49th MP Brigade was moved south for riot duty during the second Watts riot.

The 40th Inf. Div. had their own organic MP's but only a company. I never knew exact numbers, but they had a fairly good percentage of LAPD and LASD officers as Guard members. Those departments granted two weeks of paid military leave (such as federal civil servants get) to LEO's for Guard and reserve AT attendance. My impression is that most of the LEO Guardsmen were also prior active service. I sensed they had a kind of caste system going, with LEO's being held a cut above non LEO and/or non prior service Guardsmen. To some extent meaning a lot of those men who joined to avoid the draft.

Kent State, May 4, 1970, lest we forget what can happen. When people tell me the government won't turn on its citizens, I suggest they look up the event, as well as many others surrounding that date.

This subject is thought provoking and certainly appropriate for this thread. The following is my own opinion. The point where the government may turn against its citizens must be carefully examined. However, I believe that point will be starkly evident in that the turning will involve a sharp difference of opinion between the government and those governed. What some might call a "defining moment." And opinion about it may vary from one location to another. It will be tricky.

Re. the Kent State episode. Are we getting into an "apples and oranges" situation here or not? The Guard has been called out many times to restore order. Is there a difference between rioters breaking glass and setting buildings on fire and college students throwing rocks and refusing to disperse? I think we can all agree that there are different degrees of disobedience. And as times change, so do the lines drawn. Civilians were shot by Guardsmen during the course of both Watts riots, no serious complaint was made about those events. Yet when a dozen college students got shot, there was a big stink that got bigger down through history. We also have to remind ourselves that the Kent State episode occurred during a period when there was great political divisiveness.

Once again, I will say the following is just my opinion. I think the degree of disobedience at Kent State did not warrant lethal force. BUT: I think the fact that people got shot (and four killed) was a fluke. I don't believe anyone involved thought it would come to the use of lethal force. How and why it came about is a longer story. Press coverage at the time gave this very wide publicity. But in 1970, a majority of Americans faulted the students, not the Guard. Times change.

 

[EPS]

 

[rfmjchp]

Interesting comments re. MP Guardsmen assuming peace officer status (depending). I wasn't aware of this.

In the immediate years following the first Watts Riot, there was a lot of thought -- and repeated changing of minds -- as to what kind and how much riot control training that Guardsmen should have. As time passed from the Watts riot, policy makers kinda throttled back on the concept -- and the training. For non-MP Guardsmen, that is. In the 1970's, I remember seeing riot control gear on unit property books but I cannot recall which ones.

If you draw a horizontal line midway through the State of California, the population split between north and south is approximately 35% to 65%. The pop. bias to the south dictates a greater strength disposition to National Guard units in that region. For a couple of decades following WW2, Calif. had the 49th Inf. Div. in the north and the 40th Inf. Div. in the south. Both divisions were broken up in 1968, but the 40th was reformed in Jan. 1974 (with one brigade out of San Jose). The 49th was never resurrected as an infantry division. The population in the southern Calif. area, it was felt, was sufficient to support recruiting and retention efforts for a division. During this same time that rfmjchp refers to, as I recall there were several military police battalions in the north. Later still, the lineage of the 49th was brought back as a separate MP brigade which exists today. I don't know for a fact, but I believe creating an over-hang of military police formations in the CA ARNG may have been an outgrowth of the experience of the first Watts riot. There was no room on TO&E for MP battalions in the south, but they filled out the north with them. Which could be moved south if needed. The MP units from the north were more likely to be used in the south, so activating Guard members who were LEO's wouldn't put undue stress on police organizations in the south. And this was exactly the scenario in 1992 when the 49th MP Brigade was moved south for riot duty during the second Watts riot.

The 40th Inf. Div. had their own organic MP's but only a company. I never knew exact numbers, but they had a fairly good percentage of LAPD and LASD officers as Guard members. Those departments granted two weeks of paid military leave (such as federal civil servants get) to LEO's for Guard and reserve AT attendance. My impression is that most of the LEO Guardsmen were also prior active service. I sensed they had a kind of caste system going, with LEO's being held a cut above non LEO and/or non prior service Guardsmen. To some extent meaning a lot of those men who joined to avoid the draft.



This subject is thought provoking and certainly appropriate for this thread. The following is my own opinion. The point where the government may turn against its citizens must be carefully examined. However, I believe that point will be starkly evident in that the turning will involve a sharp difference of opinion between the government and those governed. What some might call a "defining moment." And opinion about it may vary from one location to another. It will be tricky.

Re. the Kent State episode. Are we getting into an "apples and oranges" situation here or not? The Guard has been called out many times to restore order. Is there a difference between rioters breaking glass and setting buildings on fire and college students throwing rocks and refusing to disperse? I think we can all agree that there are different degrees of disobedience. And as times change, so do the lines drawn. Civilians were shot by Guardsmen during the course of both Watts riots, no serious complaint was made about those events. Yet when a dozen college students got shot, there was a big stink that got bigger down through history. We also have to remind ourselves that the Kent State episode occurred during a period when there was great political divisiveness.

Once again, I will say the following is just my opinion. I think the degree of disobedience at Kent State did not warrant lethal force. BUT: I think the fact that people got shot (and four killed) was a fluke. I don't believe anyone involved thought it would come to the use of lethal force. How and why it came about is a longer story. Press coverage at the time gave this very wide publicity. But in 1970, a majority of Americans faulted the students, not the Guard. Times change.