• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

My bill made the news.

KBCraig

KBCraig

NES Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
19,732
Likes
22,043
Location
Granite State of Mind
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Totally unknown to me, this article was posted. I only saw it because someone shared it and tagged me on FB.

blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com

New Hampshire Bill Would Set Foundation to Block Unconstitutional National Guard Deployments | Tenth Amendment Center

A bill introduced in the New Hampshire House would empower the governor to stop unconstitutional foreign deployments of the state’s National Guard troops. Passage into law would take a step toward restoring the founders’ constitutional framework for a state-federal balance regarding the state...
blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com

The idea of federal supremacy over the National Guard is widely misunderstood. Often deliberately so, by those who care more about the money than about the troops and their families.

My bill actually mirrors federal law exactly, and doesn't conflict with it at all.

SCOTUS ruled in Perpich v. DOD that National Guard can be activated without the governor's consent for training, but only for training.

I introduced this bill because our NH National Guard are exhausted. Constant deployment overseas ruins their family lives and their civilian employment. For over 20 years I've watched friends in the Guard have to weigh staying active duty versus trying to return to their (damaged) former careers, and Guard families dealing with deployment without the resources available to active Army families.

Governors absolutely have the authority to refuse activation of National Guard to federal service except in case of insurrection, invasion, or for enforcement of federal law.
 
KBCraig said:
Totally unknown to me, this article was posted. I only saw it because someone shared it and tagged me on FB.

blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com

New Hampshire Bill Would Set Foundation to Block Unconstitutional National Guard Deployments | Tenth Amendment Center

A bill introduced in the New Hampshire House would empower the governor to stop unconstitutional foreign deployments of the state’s National Guard troops. Passage into law would take a step toward restoring the founders’ constitutional framework for a state-federal balance regarding the state...
blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com

The idea of federal supremacy over the National Guard is widely misunderstood. Often deliberately so, by those who care more about the money than about the troops and their families.

My bill actually mirrors federal law exactly, and doesn't conflict with it at all.

SCOTUS ruled in Perpich v. DOD that National Guard can be activated without the governor's consent for training, but only for training.

I introduced this bill because our NH National Guard are exhausted. Constant deployment overseas ruins their family lives and their civilian employment. For over 20 years I've watched friends in the Guard have to weigh staying active duty versus trying to return to their (damaged) former careers, and Guard families dealing with deployment without the resources available to active Army families.

Governors absolutely have the authority to refuse activation of National Guard to federal service except in case of insurrection, invasion, or for enforcement of federal law.
Click to expand...

"Governors absolutely have the authority to refuse activation of National Guard to federal service except in case of insurrection, invasion, or for enforcement of federal law."

And now I think I know why main stream news keeps saying "insurrection" when discussing the "riot" at the capitol.
 
"IN PRACTICE

National Guard troops have played significant roles in all modern overseas conflicts, with over 650,000 deployed since 2001. Military.com reports that “Guard and Reserve units made up about 45 percent of the total force sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, and received about 18.4 percent of the casualties.” More specifically, New Hampshire National Guard troops have participated in missions in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bosnia and elsewhere.

Since none of these missions fall under the three criteria constitutionally necessary to call up the militia, the New Hampshire Defend the Guard Act would have prohibited those deployments."


As described in this paragraph from the article, I'm100% against this bill. I hope it fails.

With the shift to stability ops, the reserve component should be used MORE and not less and with combat formations coming out of the USAR years ago-this falls on the ARNG.

As it is now with the active component doing the heavy lifting for the last 20 years, the country is poorly prepared for large scale combat operations against a peer competitor--one of the things we give up our tax money to the DOD for.
 
AFAR/PFAR said:
"IN PRACTICE

National Guard troops have played significant roles in all modern overseas conflicts, with over 650,000 deployed since 2001. Military.com reports that “Guard and Reserve units made up about 45 percent of the total force sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, and received about 18.4 percent of the casualties.” More specifically, New Hampshire National Guard troops have participated in missions in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bosnia and elsewhere.

Since none of these missions fall under the three criteria constitutionally necessary to call up the militia, the New Hampshire Defend the Guard Act would have prohibited those deployments."


As described in this paragraph from the article, I'm100% against this bill. I hope it fails.

With the shift to stability ops, the reserve component should be used MORE and not less and with combat formations coming out of the USAR years ago-this falls on the ARNG.

As it is now with the active component doing the heavy lifting for the last 20 years, the country is poorly prepared for large scale combat operations against a peer competitor--one of the things we give up our tax money to the DOD for.
Click to expand...
I disagree with this, not from the standpoint of national security, but from the standpoint of a citizen.
Nobody joined the national guard to be a trench grunt, the advertising makes it clear- one week a month two weeks a year, support your fellow citizens. Even the finest of print doesn't say "Get blown up in a 3rd world country in a war with shifting goalposts for no good reason", but then again, I'm firmly on the side of if you go to war you whoop your opponent and then do what you want. Freedom isn't something can be handed out like candy, the bullies are always going to come out of the school yard and whoop you for your piece. Freedom needs to be earned, and people need to figure that out in its own time and flavor.
 
Yabbut. . . .

One weekend a month, 2 weeks a year and we pay you because. . . . . . . . we (the government) just feel like throwing money away?? Anyone in 2021 that goes in thinking they're gonna do 4 or 6 or 10 or 20 of sit-around-drinking-beer for a few weeks a year is sorely mistaken.

I considered Guard back in the late 80's. Pre-Dessert-Storm I. Then watched a buddy of mine in collitch get called up on his Marine company and miss a year of school. WHOA! I thought it was 1 weekend a month, two weeks a year!

I'm sort of in the middle of all of this. We shouldn't market Guard as this cushy part-time job that gets you military benefits. Nor should we be using them to over-backfill everywhere and anywhere. I'm thinking the standing army needs to be strengthened OR some sort of compromise with Guard folk. I dunno. I'm spitballing here. I get both sides. We can't have a good standing army of the size we need BUT we can't keep asking these fellas to go overseas. Push more Reserves and back off of Guard??? I get they are competing for the same puddle of applicants. Back Guard down to disaster-relief roles in-state???? An interesting quandary.
 
Dems want it both ways. They claim no need for private militias because the NG is in fact the modern day State militia. If so then the primary purpose of a State militia is to protect the well being of the citizens of the State. The common definition of State when the Constitution was written meant the local towns and communities.

The NG should be under control of the State to protect its citizens. It is not and should not be a replacement for the standing full-time Federal armed forces,
 
Drix said:
I disagree with this, not from the standpoint of national security, but from the standpoint of a citizen.
Nobody joined the national guard to be a trench grunt, the advertising makes it clear- one week a month two weeks a year, support your fellow citizens. Even the finest of print doesn't say "Get blown up in a 3rd world country in a war with shifting goalposts for no good reason", but then again, I'm firmly on the side of if you go to war you whoop your opponent and then do what you want. Freedom isn't something can be handed out like candy, the bullies are always going to come out of the school yard and whoop you for your piece. Freedom needs to be earned, and people need to figure that out in its own time and flavor.
Click to expand...

There is very little fine print in the enlistment oath for the ARNG.

Military action is more than just blowing something up and going home. We have been in the "nation building" business and providing a worldwide presence longer than anyone on this board has been alive.
 
Dennis in MA said:
Yabbut. . . .

One weekend a month, 2 weeks a year and we pay you because. . . . . . . . we (the government) just feel like throwing money away?? Anyone in 2021 that goes in thinking they're gonna do 4 or 6 or 10 or 20 of sit-around-drinking-beer for a few weeks a year is sorely mistaken.

I considered Guard back in the late 80's. Pre-Dessert-Storm I. Then watched a buddy of mine in collitch get called up on his Marine company and miss a year of school. WHOA! I thought it was 1 weekend a month, two weeks a year!

I'm sort of in the middle of all of this. We shouldn't market Guard as this cushy part-time job that gets you military benefits. Nor should we be using them to over-backfill everywhere and anywhere. I'm thinking the standing army needs to be strengthened OR some sort of compromise with Guard folk. I dunno. I'm spitballing here. I get both sides. We can't have a good standing army of the size we need BUT we can't keep asking these fellas to go overseas. Push more Reserves and back off of Guard??? I get they are competing for the same puddle of applicants. Back Guard down to disaster-relief roles in-state???? An interesting quandary.
Click to expand...
He was a Marine Reservist, not National Guard. So get your facts straight.
 
Drix said:
I disagree with this, not from the standpoint of national security, but from the standpoint of a citizen.
Nobody joined the national guard to be a trench grunt, the advertising makes it clear- one week a month two weeks a year, support your fellow citizens. Even the finest of print doesn't say "Get blown up in a 3rd world country in a war with shifting goalposts for no good reason", but then again, I'm firmly on the side of if you go to war you whoop your opponent and then do what you want. Freedom isn't something can be handed out like candy, the bullies are always going to come out of the school yard and whoop you for your piece. Freedom needs to be earned, and people need to figure that out in its own time and flavor.
Click to expand...
Bull. Anyone that joined in the last 20 years expects to deploy.
 
FisherTech said:
No, It is a New Hampshire issue, and you have no dog in that fight. Yes, You should be sorry.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif



Well you're either 70 or 2, either way you got no idea how the internet works. You don't want anything but local input, don't put it on anything but a local board.

I see you had no problems weighing in on the MA national guard going back to DC, Missouri state's bill against federal gun controls, a Missouri gun shop's willingness not to sell to Biden supporters, Massachusetts regs about driving tractors on public roads, Mass lawmaker's pay raises, and of course since I posted this you've decided to weigh in on MA trapping laws. I could keep the list going I'm sure, but what I'm poking at here is basically:

Shut the f*** up you hypocrite, I'm in no mood for your cane waving.
 
Last edited:
FisherTech said:
Hey Drix and Dennis in MA, I don't know about Drix, but Dennis in Ma clearly shows that he a Ma$$hole resident, and since this is a New Hampshire issue, BUGGER OFF!!
Click to expand...
So you will not be posting a reply in Ma. threads? Can't we all just get along...

I suppose we will get the obligatory Ma. ruined NH reply at some point. [hmmm]
 
AFAR/PFAR said:
There is very little fine print in the enlistment oath for the ARNG.

Military action is more than just blowing something up and going home. We have been in the "nation building" business and providing a worldwide presence longer than anyone on this board has been alive.
Click to expand...

But is that a good thing, the nation building/world cop role? Perpetual war, or meddling at least? Something we should continue doing?
 
Settle down boys. KBCraig got a good, decent thread going on a serious issue, plenty of other threads to wag your dicks around complaining about fence lines. Please and thank you.
 
KBCraig said:
Totally unknown to me, this article was posted. I only saw it because someone shared it and tagged me on FB.

blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com

New Hampshire Bill Would Set Foundation to Block Unconstitutional National Guard Deployments | Tenth Amendment Center

A bill introduced in the New Hampshire House would empower the governor to stop unconstitutional foreign deployments of the state’s National Guard troops. Passage into law would take a step toward restoring the founders’ constitutional framework for a state-federal balance regarding the state...
blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com

The idea of federal supremacy over the National Guard is widely misunderstood. Often deliberately so, by those who care more about the money than about the troops and their families.

My bill actually mirrors federal law exactly, and doesn't conflict with it at all.

SCOTUS ruled in Perpich v. DOD that National Guard can be activated without the governor's consent for training, but only for training.

I introduced this bill because our NH National Guard are exhausted. Constant deployment overseas ruins their family lives and their civilian employment. For over 20 years I've watched friends in the Guard have to weigh staying active duty versus trying to return to their (damaged) former careers, and Guard families dealing with deployment without the resources available to active Army families.

Governors absolutely have the authority to refuse activation of National Guard to federal service except in case of insurrection, invasion, or for enforcement of federal law.
Click to expand...

👍
 
FisherTech said:
Hey Drix and Dennis in MA, I don't know about Drix, but Dennis in Ma clearly shows that he a Ma$$hole resident, and since this is a New Hampshire issue, BUGGER OFF!!
Click to expand...

Are you always f***ing dumb or just on this forum?????

I'm sure you don't get involved in ANY discussions about ANY other states that New Hampster. Gosh. You scared-of-mASS NH guys take the cake here.
 
OP, this is solid work! I did not know you were a rep nor from Coos County.

Food for thought, Perpich Vs DoD misses the mark. It looks good in that the .gov can only jerk states soldiers around for training, but let's look at this in really basic terms.

Why does a state have a national guard? For protection of said state and any work the governor deems appropriate that's legal. Perfect. Well what if one state isn't exactly getting along well with another state? Or the federal government? The US has had state militias fight in the past. And the US has also had a civil war. States having huge problems with each other and or the federal government and or a new rebel government have all been things.

Making it so the federal government can't force deployments is good. That said, giving the federal government the ability to completely relocate and entire force up to and including overseas for training is insane. TX is still pissed off that SCOTUS's University of Phoenix legal team F'd up the PA thing? Hey... maybe we should send TX's guards off to the moon for some training while we round up those loud mouths in TX for bitching about the government literally not even pretending to care about the case.

What good is a states guard if it can be located outside its area of protection via a 3rd party? Insane.

The guard is basically Army Reserve 2.0 and has been for a while.
 
Dench said:
That said, giving the federal government the ability to completely relocate and entire force up to and including overseas for training is insane. TX is still pissed off that SCOTUS's University of Phoenix legal team F'd up the PA thing? Hey... maybe we should send TX's guards off to the moon for some training while we round up those loud mouths in TX for bitching about the government literally not even pretending to care about the case.
Click to expand...

Why is it insane?
Where are they going to train? Look at the makeup of the NH ARNG. A rocket battalion, a FAB HQ, an infantry company with it's HQ in VT, and some other randos. You're not doing IN bn livefires in NH. You're not firing HIMARS either.
When are they going to get training? I watched the 86th at JRTC a couple years back-yeah, they need the training. One of the companies in a battalion is from NH-so we're saying that the battalion can't train as a whole because some dude in NH says no?
When are they going to perform their role as a strategic reserve if some dumbass governor wants to bury his head in the sand?

Also, these aren't a state guard. NH as far as I know does not have one of those. Some other states do.

OP's bill is shortsighted and is grandstanding as much as those clowns in DC are doing now.
 

Similar threads

Bill H.4139
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Ron Jablonski
R
Bad news LTC holders, can't buy ammo at BassPro
2 3
Replies
66
Views
2K
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Supreme Court and guns in the news (search 3/4/24)
Replies
0
Views
183
Coyote33
Coyote33
BREAKING NEWS: Scores Killed, Hundreds Injured as Extremists Riot in Boston Area
Replies
10
Views
471
Zappa
Zappa
  • Poll
Mass Gun Bill - Should MFGs Continue to Support the Police?
Replies
26
Views
1K
Admin
Admin
Back
Top Bottom