PDA

View Full Version : National Guard, Illegal in gun free zone?


Mr. Wannabe High Profile Banger
04-26-2010, 1:28 PM
So isnt there a law making chicago a gun free zone?

How does the national guard, (citizen soldiers, with one month a year training) <--- i can think like a liberal too...
Get to take "assualt weapons" into a gun free city?

isnt there anything illegal about that?
and dont we have the right not to court soldiers in our homes or cities or whatever?

I think their should be a law suit filed against cities with assualt weapons bans, that allow military to carry illegal weapons

MrSlippyFist
04-26-2010, 1:41 PM
They don't. They take strong worded letters and sunshine and flowers to try and reason with the criminals.

CCWFacts
04-26-2010, 1:43 PM
So isnt there a law making chicago a gun free zone?

How does the national guard, (citizen soldiers, with one month a year training) <--- i can think like a liberal too...
Get to take "assualt weapons" into a gun free city?

I don't know under which statute, but they are entirely exempt from any state or local gun laws. They are effectively part of the US military, which is entirely outside of any state jurisdiction.

Berkeley, for example, is a "nuclear free zone", meaning that the city bans all nuclear weapons. Wonderful! That probably would be enforcible against privately-owned nuclear weapons, but is entirely irrelevant to military-borrowed nuclear weapons (the DoD doesn't own any nuclear weapons, they are all on loan).

OleCuss
04-26-2010, 2:07 PM
The National Guard is both military and has police powers. It can pretty much have any kind of weaponry anywhere it wants. So the California National Guard has artillery, fighter aircraft, helicopters, machine guns, etc. - and can go pretty much where it wants as long as it won't tick off the greenies.

winnre
04-26-2010, 2:08 PM
If I fly in a small plane from Los Angeles to Palm Springs and I have a firearm, do I have to avoid schools' airspace?

MrSlippyFist
04-26-2010, 2:18 PM
If I fly in a small plane from Los Angeles to Palm Springs and I have a firearm, do I have to avoid schools' airspace?

Is your plane door locked?

thempopresense
04-26-2010, 2:21 PM
If I fly in a small plane from Los Angeles to Palm Springs and I have a firearm, do I have to avoid schools' airspace?

Do you plan of flying less than a 1000' above the ground or roof of a school? Does the law say anything about airspace, I think it is just distance.

winnre
04-26-2010, 2:29 PM
Is your plane door locked?

+10000! :rofl2:

Anyone in real estate knows that the school's airspace is their property, so you would be flying right through their property, hmmm.

CavTrooper
04-26-2010, 3:17 PM
and dont we have the right not to court soldiers in our homes or cities or whatever?


You may or may not "court" a Soldier anywhere you wish, just dont feel bad when you do and they dont reciprocate.

juicemansam
04-26-2010, 3:44 PM
Don't worry, the Canadians will be all too happy enforcing our gun-laws. According to the Civil Assistance Plan (http://www.northcom.mil/news/2008/021408.html) they'd be legit.
“This document is a unique, bilateral military plan to align our respective national military plans to respond quickly to the other nation's requests for military support of civil authorities,” Renuart said. “Unity of effort during bilateral support for civil support operations such as floods, forest fires, hurricanes, earthquakes and effects of a terrorist attack, in order to save lives, prevent human suffering and mitigate damage to property, is of the highest importance, and we need to be able to have forces that are flexible and adaptive to support rapid decision-making in a collaborative environment.”

vantec08
04-26-2010, 3:44 PM
Of course the natl,. guard has weapons in "gun free zones", most governors and politicians dont have the huevos to call it what it is . . .. the entry level form of martial law.

Ron-Solo
04-26-2010, 3:54 PM
Try the 3rd Amendment:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


That means you don't have to provide room and board without consent. There are some exceptions during a time of war.

winnre
04-26-2010, 4:04 PM
Try the 3rd Amendment:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


That means you don't have to provide room and board without consent. There are some exceptions during a time of war.


Reading by the letter of the law the Army may be out in the cold, but Airmen, Sailors and Marines have a place to stay!

jb7706
04-26-2010, 5:02 PM
Try the 3rd Amendment:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


That means you don't have to provide room and board without consent. There are some exceptions during a time of war.

Except, like the 2nd, that amendment has not been incorporated except for the Second Circuit IIRC.

jb7706
04-26-2010, 5:21 PM
They are effectively part of the US military, which is entirely outside of any state jurisdiction.


I'm not sure that's entirely true. Things may have changed since I was last in, but 15 years ago the NG was under the control of the state Governor, and funded mostly by the state. The feds have no authority unless the NG unit(s) in question are federalized. The Feds may contribute cash to the state guard, but the state itself holds the purse strings and how those funds, in addition to its own are allocated to various units within the sate.

Think back to Alabama in the 60's. Kennedy federalized the NG to keep order in the streets during the school integration uproar. Until that point Wallace had total command of the NG troops in his state.

Even while a Soldier is sent for boot camp, AIT or other active duty schools for training or for other temporary assignment with the AD forces that Soldier remains under the command of the Governor of the state s/he is enlisted.

Now Army/Air/etc Reserve are under Federal control at all times, active duty or not.

All that said your average cook/clerk/truck driver is not necessarily well trained for civilian peacekeeping missions. And those Soldiers that have experience likely earned it on the streets of Iraq or Afghanistan. Think of it, combat hardened vets on patrol on the streets of an American city. While I would trust the individual Soldier to do the right thing I have no such faith in the higher echelons.

What uneasy imagery does that conjure? America's own Armed Forces being used against its own citizens. I find it frightening and interesting at the same time that the very politicians that rail against sending troops to the border are the first ones to call for them in the street. Troubling times indeed.

Librarian
04-26-2010, 6:05 PM
NG are dual-enlisted (dunno the term for officers) where members are part both of state and federal, and may be federalized - even over the objections of the state Governor.
Q: How is the Army National Guard different from other military divisions?

A: Our mission makes us different. Unlike the other Armed Forces branches, we have a dual mission, meaning we answer to both state and federal governments. So Guard Soldiers can be deployed by either the governor of their resident state or the president of the United States, depending on where they are needed most.http://www.nationalguard.com/life/faq

Aleksandr Mravinsky
04-26-2010, 6:12 PM
No. Guns are only bad when you normal people have them.

haodoken
04-26-2010, 6:23 PM
NG are dual-enlisted (dunno the term for officers) where members are part both of state and federal, and may be federalized - even over the objections of the state Governor.
http://www.nationalguard.com/life/faq

Officers are "Commissioned" with both state and federal recognition.

haodoken
04-26-2010, 6:28 PM
I don't know under which statute, but they are entirely exempt from any state or local gun laws. They are effectively part of the US military, which is entirely outside of any state jurisdiction.

Just to clarify, we are PART of the US Military. Often many of us were originally from active duty but wanted to do something else full time but still wanted to serve in a reserve/national guard status.

OleCuss
04-26-2010, 7:36 PM
haodoken is correct.

I'd also note that while the NG can be federalized somewhat independently of the governor, in reality the governor is pretty influential in determining who gets activated and (to a more limited extent) how many.

To further explain the relationships let me use the Army as an example.

1. There is the Active Component which is the Active Duty Army which is composed essentially entirely of full-time soldiers.

2. There is the Reserve Component which is composed of:
a. Army Reserves. Mostly provides combat support and support to
the Active Duty Army and to the National Guard (when federalized).
The Army Reserves are always under the command of the POTUS and
I've been told in all seriousness that it was created as a mechanism
to provide physicians and nurses in time of war - but it is much more
than that.
b. The Army National Guard. I'm not sure how it sorts out now, but as
recently as (I think) 2005 more than 1/2 of the nominal combat
combat power in the Army resided in the National Guard. I said
"nominal" because most units are not well-equipped and sometimes
not well-trained. Can be activated for state duty and can exercise
police powers. The Sheriff's like to say that they are the supreme
law enforcement in their County, but if the National Guard is sent in
they can typically walk all over the police and sheriff - but frequently
sets up a cooperative arrangement and effectively cedes the lead
role to local LE. Unless federalized their supreme commander is the
governor - not the POTUS.

The mind-set of the Reserve Component and especially the National Guard tends to be significantly different from that of the Active Duty Army. This is so much so that early in the Iraq invasion I heard pretty credible reports of Active and Reserve Component forces deliberately firing at each other. It's usually much better than that though.

Meplat
04-26-2010, 7:41 PM
The only hope is oath keepers! Active, vets, LEOs, all the same. If we keep our oath the public has nothing to fear!


I'm not sure that's entirely true. Things may have changed since I was last in, but 15 years ago the NG was under the control of the state Governor, and funded mostly by the state. The feds have no authority unless the NG unit(s) in question are federalized. The Feds may contribute cash to the state guard, but the state itself holds the purse strings and how those funds, in addition to its own are allocated to various units within the sate.

Think back to Alabama in the 60's. Kennedy federalized the NG to keep order in the streets during the school integration uproar. Until that point Wallace had total command of the NG troops in his state.

Even while a Soldier is sent for boot camp, AIT or other active duty schools for training or for other temporary assignment with the AD forces that Soldier remains under the command of the Governor of the state s/he is enlisted.

Now Army/Air/etc Reserve are under Federal control at all times, active duty or not.

All that said your average cook/clerk/truck driver is not necessarily well trained for civilian peacekeeping missions. And those Soldiers that have experience likely earned it on the streets of Iraq or Afghanistan. Think of it, combat hardened vets on patrol on the streets of an American city. While I would trust the individual Soldier to do the right thing I have no such faith in the higher echelons.

What uneasy imagery does that conjure? America's own Armed Forces being used against its own citizens. I find it frightening and interesting at the same time that the very politicians that rail against sending troops to the border are the first ones to call for them in the street. Troubling times indeed.

POLICESTATE
04-26-2010, 7:50 PM
Using NG to police places that are not suffering from some catastrophe like floods, earthquakes, etc is going to set an ugly precedent.

OleCuss
04-26-2010, 7:57 PM
Using NG to police places that are not suffering from some catastrophe like floods, earthquakes, etc is going to set an ugly precedent.

It may be worse than you even think. I remember when Katrina hit and guys were being recruited to go down there as NG to help. Mostly you got volunteers who didn't have regular jobs (average quality was lower but some were excellent) and the leadership just sucked. I heard complaints both from NG who served there and from American Red Cross who saw them from the other side of the coin.

When you activate well-trained and equipped units it can be a different story. But I can remember being activated for the San Diego fires - the upper echelon planning and execution was awful although I thought most at the Brigade level and below were pretty good if given the resources and the opportunity.

POLICESTATE
04-26-2010, 8:27 PM
A "good" first step would be to use NG across the country in certain districts to provide "security" for voting in 2010 and 2012.

Of course it's would be bad bad bad, but yeah I could see something like that happening to reassure the public that a bunch of right-wing extremists :rolleyes: won't be able to pull any stunts at the voting locations and at the same time get people used to the idea of NG helping to secure things.

Remember after 9/11 when you had NG at all the airports with M16's? I mean seriously, how is that going to secure the airports vs the type of terrorists we are at risk of? It's not like they're going to go into an airport to shoot the place up, but it sure gets the message across to the rest of us plebs not to step out of line. :mad:

Soldiers armed with automatic weapons policing places is the sort of image I'm used to seeing in third world countries and totalitarian countries, NOT the USA.

jb7706
04-26-2010, 8:54 PM
Remember after 9/11 when you had NG at all the airports with M16's? I mean seriously, how is that going to secure the airports vs the type of terrorists we are at risk of?

I had to do a bit of flying right after 9/11. Every Soldier I came into contact with didn't even have a BCG installed in their rifle. It was clear that they were there just for show.

CCWFacts
04-26-2010, 9:39 PM
I had to do a bit of flying right after 9/11. Every Soldier I came into contact with didn't even have a BCG installed in their rifle. It was clear that they were there just for show.

That's all it was about, obviously. They were there standing around the screening lines, probably to intimidate people into obedience. Which has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, because you can expect that terrorists would be the most compliant passengers possible. This whole thing is a massive obedience training program.

Fortunately some don't go along with it.

Jz8OocnnH0g

socalblue
04-26-2010, 10:57 PM
haodoken is correct.

I'd also note that while the NG can be federalized somewhat independently of the governor, in reality the governor is pretty influential in determining who gets activated and (to a more limited extent) how many.

To further explain the relationships let me use the Army as an example.

1. There is the Active Component which is the Active Duty Army which is composed essentially entirely of full-time soldiers.

2. There is the Reserve Component which is composed of:
a. Army Reserves. Mostly provides combat support and support to
the Active Duty Army and to the National Guard (when federalized).
The Army Reserves are always under the command of the POTUS and
I've been told in all seriousness that it was created as a mechanism
to provide physicians and nurses in time of war - but it is much more
than that.
b. The Army National Guard. I'm not sure how it sorts out now, but as
recently as (I think) 2005 more than 1/2 of the nominal combat
combat power in the Army resided in the National Guard. I said
"nominal" because most units are not well-equipped and sometimes
not well-trained. Can be activated for state duty and can exercise
police powers. The Sheriff's like to say that they are the supreme
law enforcement in their County, but if the National Guard is sent in
they can typically walk all over the police and sheriff - but frequently
sets up a cooperative arrangement and effectively cedes the lead
role to local LE. Unless federalized their supreme commander is the
governor - not the POTUS.

The mind-set of the Reserve Component and especially the National Guard tends to be significantly different from that of the Active Duty Army. This is so much so that early in the Iraq invasion I heard pretty credible reports of Active and Reserve Component forces deliberately firing at each other. It's usually much better than that though.

By law, the Sheriff is the CLEO of the county in which elected in CA. As such, the NG, if activated by the Governor, would answer to him/her. In reality, an NG unit is assigned an AO/task list & is provided a number of regular LEO's to assist/advise.

States may loan NG units to each other for a certain time period (Have to look that up) & are usually reimbursed by the Federal Government for doing so (IE: Katrina). Once activated into Federal service the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits use for law enforcement EXCEPT in certain cases: (President Kennedy used the Insurrection Act of 1807):

§ 332. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

§ 333. Interference with State and Federal law
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

This was amended in 2007 & again in 2008:

(a) USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.--
(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--
(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

This frankly scares the heck out of me. It would not be above the Obama administration to stretch § 333 for their own purposes ....

Aleksandr Mravinsky
04-27-2010, 3:56 PM
If history has taught us anything, it is that human beings cannot be trusted to have absolute power over any other human beings.