NH establishing a permanent state defense force

It's not for life - here:





So you can say "no I don't want to help - my wife just had a kid".

I think the most important rabbit to chase is the DHS suggestion to create a State Defense Force. The language of THAT document is what helped frame what we see here.



[edit on 27-2-2009 by ACEMANN]

Found info on SDF's and their relationship with the federal forces, from the perspective of the federal military:

SDF

Good read.

This section got me thinking (pg 7)

If the emergency prompting the employment of state military forces is declared a disaster at the federal level, then state National Guard soldiers may transition from a state active duty status to a Title 32 status, which is federally funded, nonfederal duty status, to perform state duty. State Defense Forces would remain in state active duty status in any case. Only in the case of a declaration of martial law or in the execution of homeland defense operations against an aggressor would State Defense Forces conceivably be under the direct control of the federal military.29

[edit on 27-2-2009 by ACEMANN]

[edit on 27-2-2009 by ACEMANN]

reply to post by ACEMANN


Governors would never allow the State Defense Force to ever fall under federal military command after they've been stripped of their National Guard forces. I'm sure the military would try to take control of these forces and when they said no, that would begin the situation I described before where the military pushed the State Defense Force/Militia and they pushed back. It would truly be a defining moment in our history that has only happened once before, the Civil War.

The primary problem here is that the Civil War was a regional war, whereas this time it'll likely involve all 50 States simultaneously as we descend into economic chaos of proportions never before seen. Another added benefit in this particular round of chaos will be that the Federal military will be in the same financial ruin, no longer earning anything of value for their service while the majority of troops now live off base, with mortgages and land payments of their own.

I have a very strong feeling that when we do fall under the weight of economic collapse, we're going to see the vast majority of military troops siding with us, rather than them. It'll be at that point in time where we turn a new page in American history. One that Marie Antoinette is familiar with.

Oh, and did I mention our extra free added complimentary bonus gift? Most of the first and second world nations will be enjoying these experiences all on their own in their own nations just as we are! All of our overseas bases will truly be isolated in that they'll suddenly be without funding. I'm sure that'll go well.

New Hampshire is doing the right thing. Other States need to quickly follow. Here, in Washington State, we already have everything outlines in Article Ten of our State Constitution. It might be time that everyone get a copy of their State Constitution and start reading.

reply to post by ACEMANN


I saw that part, but I interpreted it to mean that members of the inactive reserve could volunteer to go into active reserve mode for as long as their circumstances allow and then opt back out of active, if needed, but they would still be inactive reserve. Once opted out of active service they revert back to inactive reserve. Then again, what I take at a face value interpretation is entirely possible to not be the legal interpretation, but just a guess on my part from a cursory read through.

I absolutely agree that the DHS suggestion for creating the force in the first place is a focus of primary concern.

I just think there are a lot of questions and things that I would be incredibly hesitant about that required some serious answers before I would be getting excited about this state defense force. It all seems a little bit "off" after a careful reading.

Take care,
Cindi

Edited because I can't spell "of" today...ugh!

[edit on 2/27/2009 by Glencairn]

Alabama has had her own State Defense Forces for years. They come out to the small town street fairs and set up recruiting and do meet and greet, things like that.

At our Fall street fair they had Christmas cards you could fill out that they send to the troops overseas.

Usually, when a bad storm or something goes down they mobilize and are in the streets helping before the governor even gets his tv time.

They are all pro-bono volunteer. Sometimes they can't even get reimbursed for materials.

Kind of like your neighborhood volunteer SHTF dept.

Alabama SDF

The history page of their website is an interesting read.


[edit on 27-2-2009 by hotrodturbo7]

I am a long time NH resident and former 11B honorably discharged. This entire piece of legislation is being instituted on behalf of homeland security and the federal governement. It is being done specifically at the request of Obama's Chief of staff. This "gentleman" (whose only military service was in 1990-1991 with the ISRAELI army) has publicly stated that every 18 year male should be required to complete mandatory service.

The only item of substance in the legislation is the part that institutes a new draft. Upon reaching the age of 18 you are REQUIRED to enter the new state "militia". Which is very clearly still under complete control of Homeland security and the federal government. Not only does he get his back door draft, but even better he gets everyone for life! They are starting here in NH because they feel we are the toughest nut to crack. If they suceed here all the other states will fall in line.

People this legislation is a crock as written.

Is there a clause prohibiting membership in private civilian militia units while serving in the NHSDF?

Could this be a roundabout way of crippling existing private militia groups?

reply to post by Symbiote


I do not see anything like that. Plus, that would really be stepping into the Constitutional mess.

Originally posted by j2000
reply to post by Plasma applicator

 

If this is the case, will they need a Navy also?

Yes as a matter of fact. But that is just what they would be expecting. I think it will come by snowmobile. The downside is you have to register your recreational attack vehicle in the opposing state before you enter. Another thing to consider is NH residents have access to all manner of mortars, rockets and jumping jacks, MA residents are denied access to these armaments. I predict in late June early July you will see a spike in sales of these armaments.

reply to post by Plasma applicator



haha I've got four sleds, two boats, and a paddle boat.

I guess some heavy arms would help on them.....

Get 'em some of these

patrol boat

Per my previous post...I had a conversation with someone on the NH Army National Guard Adjutant General's staff today, and the two men I mentioned are indeed the force behind this. There are other motives they have that nobody has mentioned here, which raised my eyebrows, but I am told to keep my mouth shut for now.

A word about equipment and missions...I know things have changed, but when I was in the MA State Guard, we were "married" to a Light Infantry company (that, coincidentally, I had served in as a National Guard soldier many moons ago) and we drilled with them. Everything they did, we did. Every piece of equipment they used, we used. Every weapon they had to qualify on, every skill they had to test on (go/no go), we would as well. There were countless drills where we would depart an armory on a Friday night or Saturday morning, become part of a NG squad, and never see another State Guard member until the end of the drill on Sunday afternoon.

Being British I perhaps do not hold a full understanding of why so many United States citizens seem to be so discontented, I cannot help but feel many of you are perhaps hungry for troublesome times.

Although many seem to have the best intentions and show great passion along with patriotism, I cannot see just reasoning for so many wishing for such volatile actions, such as taking up arms against the ‘Feds.’ Certainly for every action there is a reaction, however I cannot see anything noteworthy warranting the desire for such reactions.

Also as a side note, change is always hard to accept but every citizen not being in possession of firearms really isn't such a problem [it’s in fact a huge improvement and the way humanity should exist.] Men, as real men, not gun toting ‘men’ can still defend their families from small minded thugs due to the decreased probability that any given attacker will have a firearm [decreased gun crime is inevitable also, meaning less instances of facing an armed attacker.] Admittedly, with almost every citizen being able to own a firearm currently in the United States revoking that right and creating unilateral withdrawal of ‘arms would be extremely hard.

The firearm issue is merely a side note though, just one aspect/issue I don't feel agreement of with your citizens on. My primary point is that I just fail to understand why so many are apparently so eager to approach troublesome times head-on when to me their currently seems no factual basis, all I see is mere fear of change.

Please try to understand I am not deeply interested in your situation so haven't studied your problems greatly, so my failure to understand may well be misguided. Just perhaps, if the 2012 theorie(s) is to come to realization, it’s you men that are going to allow the very powers to flourish that you currently wish to nobley oppose.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


Well, if you are not a Govt. mis-informant agent then I've got one thing
to say to you.

Utopia, stay to the left and down the ramp please...............

With your thinking, they will have you loaded like cattle.

Your definition of what a "real" man sounds like a bruce lee movie.

A real man will use "all" the tools available to him to protect his family against all odds. A real man will fight to keep those tools intact.

You just stay in UK and we will be just fine over here. We do not want you socialistic point of view. You can talk to France about that.