It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Phone Call w/ VA Nat'l Guardsman on Martial Law/Gun Control (12-17-19)

page: 2
29
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2019 @ 10:26 PM
link   
OK....I haven't read all the posts here, but I always thought the National Guard, and all military, took an oath to defend the Constitution.
Including the 2nd Amendment...sooooooo....unless a state alters their Constitution, how can they force the NG to do this....and in the case of the US Constitution, doesn't federal law take precedence??




The National Guard Oath of service is slightly different since Guard members also have to adhere to the Constitution of the state where they'll perform their duties.

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.


www.thebalancecareers.com...




posted on Dec, 17 2019 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
OK....I haven't read all the posts here, but I always thought the National Guard, and all military, took an oath to defend the Constitution.
Including the 2nd Amendment...sooooooo....unless a state alters their Constitution, how can they force the NG to do this....and in the case of the US Constitution, doesn't federal law take precedence??




The National Guard Oath of service is slightly different since Guard members also have to adhere to the Constitution of the state where they'll perform their duties.

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.


www.thebalancecareers.com...


That is what I thought before Katrina.. Now I dunno as all they have to do is declare some excuse that has a bottom line of disarming citizens so that only the robbers, thugs, and cartels will have the guns.

Stupid does not need a reason to be stupid it just is, IMO.



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 03:37 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky



That is what I thought before Katrina.. Now I dunno as all they have to do is declare some excuse that has a bottom line of disarming citizens so that only the robbers, thugs, and cartels will have the guns.


Katrina was definitely a troubling turn of events. However, there was one big difference compared to what's going on in Virginia. In NOLA, following Katrina, the big "excuse" they had for performing the armed searches was the fact that certain areas were under a 100% evacuation order. No personnel other than emergency services and NG personnel were allowed to remain in these areas. This is where the door to door searches and seizures took place, not all of the areas affected by Katrina, only the areas under the 100% evacuation order.

Don't get me wrong, I am in no way suggesting these searches and seizures were 'okay' by any stretch. They were not. They were a fundamental violation of several elements of the Bill of Rights (2nd and 4th Amendments chief among these). However, they did have a big 'excuse', one which doesn't really exist in Virginia. Again, I totally disagree with what happened, and frankly, I disagree with the notion of a 100% mandatory evacuation order in general, but NOLA is a pretty lawless place to begin with so I can kind of see how someone might make a case for something like this in a hurricane ravaged NOLA, fundamentally flawed as it may have been. Still doesn't make it right, but the point here being they don't have a similar justification in the Virginia situation.



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Worth recalling that, in some states, there are other state troops besides the National Guard. And those answer solely to the governor. Virginia is one of those states.

No idea how they would act in this situation, but my gut says they'd sympathize with the citizens wanting to hold onto their arms as long the citizens weren't acting hostile towards them.

Virginia Defense Force

Cheers



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 06:56 AM
link   
They was also being shot at by a few people while dropping supplies and doing rescues.



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

I wonder if the guardsman knew he was being recorded?



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: carsforkids

Virginia is a single party consent state so the YouTuber, assuming he knew the law, wasn’t required to disclose that he was recording the conversation.

That said, I have a hard time buying some random sergeant sitting on a desk is going to have this conversation instead of kicking it up to an officer or somebody in PIO, especially once YouTube channels start getting mentioned. If this is legit I would bet “sergeant Allen” is now up a creek with no paddle in sight.



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

While looking around and reading up on this it seems like they got a whole lot of calls. Might just be that they had come up with a "here's what you say" kinda response. I doubt they were gonna interrupt officers all day for probably multiple days.

Although he did interject some personal feeling into his reply it was very restrained. He might get into a bit of trouble on that. Not sure what kind of position he was but doubt he was the watch commander...



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: RickyD


Might just be that they had come up with a "here's what you say" kinda response.


Which likely consisted of “we have a public affairs officer for exactly this reason so refer questions to that office.” The adjutant General already released a statement saying they’re not going to speculate and reminding members to not get political on the job. “Sergeant Allen” did both.



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Yes, it does seem that he could not possibly have been responding officially, and could get in trouble for going public with his views.

But...which is more important a direct order or the Constitution



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

You're probably right...the more I think about it the more it looks like they heard the offical response and staged a call added the personal bit to it and put it in a video for views. Either that or someone is getting in some trouble over it.



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe


But...which is more important a direct order or the Constitution


If any confiscation is attempted, it will be preceded by a long blow on the horn of propaganda ... so that fielded soldiers don't get confused about what they're supposed to do on behalf of the governor.

That said, it would be spectacularly unpopular and could easily lead to some form of federal intervention.

Cheers



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

COTUS, end of story.

The issue is going to be that should Northam continue to go down this road, you can bet your bottom dollar he’s going to have lawyers and law professors lined up to explain why whatever order was issued is totally and completely legal and constitutional. And I would bet he’ll have somebody from the ANG on his hip whenever he starts trotting out those lawyers.

Then it comes down to little more than personal, individual interpretation of legality and, to be blunt, that’s not going to fly in a military setting. The moment individual service members are given license to individually interpret orders, “good order and discipline” is out the window.



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6




That said, I have a hard time buying some random sergeant sitting on a desk is going to have this conversation instead of kicking it up to an officer or somebody in PIO, especially once YouTube channels start getting mentioned. If this is legit I would bet “sergeant Allen” is now up a creek with no paddle in sight.


I do concur



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk
Wasn't it under the Johnson administration when the national guard opened fire on the students at Kent State? That was unconstitutional to.



But they did it...
edit on 18-12-2019 by CharlesT because: (no reason given)


Used the national guard at Little Rock Central High to walk in segregation sometime around the early 60's.
edit on 18-12-2019 by CharlesT because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 02:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

Its like this . State Gov gives the order to the guards most senior officer(s) . Calls go out to troops ( get your but to base) as you said. At this point you are given a briefing. Later you are given orders along with others paper work . Concur /Non Concur forms that you must sign acknowledging the action of your stated orders, and the usual SGLI insurance if you're KIA. Etc. Most Enlisted personal sign the same forms as officers. A little more paper work for the officers though. I'm sure there will be a problem when it comes signing the Concur/Non Concur forms though. all personal must sign the form there are no exceptions to declare. It's usually stapled to your orders or after your order/ briefing .

Most troops won't sign an order like that because it's goes against our Constitution which they are sworn to uphold. Not only in a verbal oath but in writing when they were Commissioned or Enlisted. This is where the Concur / Non Concur form comes in. ( it's legally binding) It can save your rear-end because of unlawful orders among other things. Or send you to trial. Every person in the military signs this or something legally like it before deployment.

As for the phone call noway to tell if it's real or fake. Also this confiscation issue was likely brought up by someone looking for a public reaction. You will not get a good one either from the troops or public. And it's just reckless for a governor staff to even try to gage a reaction from civilians.
edit on 19-12-2019 by SJE98 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 03:03 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlesT

It was considered a police action. There were others that took the fall for it. it was never mentioned in the media whom went to jail but a few did. I know this first hand because a family friend was their that day and said she saw two people killed right next to her running. She was not shot though, it was close , like next to her foot.

Never trust a politician is her motto. I'm glad she still with us. It just so unbelievable that happened to college students. She said mostly of them were not protesting at all ,maybe several but nothing bad. Just lots of shouting. It happened in between classes she said . She thought they were the ROTC from the college Then the shooting started.
edit on 19-12-2019 by SJE98 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 04:59 AM
link   
youtu.be...

With who is running the show...good luck Va.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1   >>

log in

join