wheres_the_beef
Experienced
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2015
- Posts
- 248
By specifying only National Guard for state forces, Moore ignores two components that fall into the current well-regulated militia category raising serious legal questions about states' right to maintain them. Because the National Guard is dual status and can be federalized many states also maintain an organized state defense force. All states currently provide for an unorganized militia in either their law or their state constitution, or both. Both those other two state militia components are well regulated. They have an existing process for the Governor to appoint officers. There's a legislated code of military justice in order to ensure good order and discipline.
It's an interesting choice if he actually is informed of the nuances of the issue he hopes to address. It certainly would make it harder to get a lot of states to support it. That includes states that he might expect to support it but maintain organized state defense forces. California is one of those states. Moore creates an issue for CA ratifying his gun control related amendment. That doesn't seem like a good move if he wants his amendment to do something other than give him a few more minutes of fame before disappearing.
It's an interesting choice if he actually is informed of the nuances of the issue he hopes to address. It certainly would make it harder to get a lot of states to support it. That includes states that he might expect to support it but maintain organized state defense forces. California is one of those states. Moore creates an issue for CA ratifying his gun control related amendment. That doesn't seem like a good move if he wants his amendment to do something other than give him a few more minutes of fame before disappearing.
