Interesting Convo with Guardsmen.

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • thebishopp

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 26, 2010
    1,286
    38
    Indiana
    Had an interesting conversation with a couple of Air National Guardsmen today. Both been in for over 10 years and at least one has done a tour in Iraq.

    Both feel that even though they are "Air National Guard" that they answer to "the President" and not the Governor of the State.

    I thought this was odd since I always thought the national guard technically answered to their individual state leaders (so much for the guard being the well regulated militia necessary for a free state lol).

    One of them is attached to Centcom and claims that he isn't paid out of the state coffers but by the feds.

    Anyway... of interest was their shared belief that orders from the President or even someone above them (say a general) superseded orders from their Governor.

    For example. The hypothetical question was posed: If your state actually voted to secede from the Union, and the Governor and State Legislature take steps to carry this out, and the President orders the arrest and imprisonment of said Governor and State Legislators would they follow the order?

    They both said yes they would because the President was who they answered to. Even if the Governor ordered them to "stand down" they would refuse the order as long as either the President or one of their immediate commanding officers gave they order. Their logic is that as long as they are following a presidential order (or one from someone in their chain of command) then they are protected as it would be a "lawful order".

    Another example was following of orders to disarm or enforce unconstitutional laws. As long as that order was given by someone above them they say they are obligated to follow the order and would do so (unless of course it was something blatantly unlawful such as gunning down civilians).

    The belief is that as long as they were following orders then they were "safe" and if the orders were "unlawful" then it would be the superior that ordered them to do it who would face any type of disciplinary actions. When I brought up the war crime prosecution of nazi soldiers, and how the "I was just following orders" defense was not accepted, they said that one can't compare what the nazi's did too American soldiers carrying out their orders because they wouldn't be rounding up millions of people and killing them.

    They also pointed out that the last part of the oath of service overruled the first part of the oath of service. Basically that the "uphold and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic was rendered moot by the second part which says they must obey all lawful orders (remember any order given to them was "lawful") of those appointed above them and the President of the United States.

    Keep in mind these were both senior nco's and one of them stands a very good chance of becoming an officer.

    Feel safe?
     

    griffin

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 30, 2011
    2,064
    36
    Okemos, MI
    We all know much of the military and law enforcement will go against the citizens of the United States if told to. It's no secret.
     

    HavokCycle

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 10, 2012
    2,087
    38
    Zionsville
    We all know much of the military and law enforcement will go against the citizens of the United States if told to. It's no secret.

    there's more citizens than military and LEO. the problem is, one group has a leader, while the other has none. swearing an oath is to a leader, and leardership, is empowering, for both parties.

    i've mentioned this else where, and no one has ever really responded. will our guardsmen take arms against their friends and family?
     

    spitfire51

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 16, 2010
    453
    16
    They also pointed out that the last part of the oath of service overruled the first part of the oath of service. Basically that the "uphold and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic was rendered moot by the second part which says they must obey all lawful orders (remember any order given to them was "lawful") of those appointed above them and the President of the United States.

    I'm curious if there's a legal basis for this, or is it just their opinion?
     

    SSGSAD

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    14   0   0
    Dec 22, 2009
    12,404
    48
    Town of 900 miles
    I retired, from INARNG, 22 years, plus 4 in USMC, and I can ASSURE you, the State Guard, answers to the GOVERNOR..... When I was deployed, the Pres. ASKED the GOVERNOR, to deploy us... YES, while on AD, Guard members are paid under Title 10, Federal Money.... BUT, the State budget, comes from the Fed., anyway ..... NOT really much difference.... I am sure Jeremy, can tell you MORE ..... I Ret., 5 years ago, things COULD have changed..... :twocents:
     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    92,863
    113
    Merrillville
    When the unit is "activated" (placed on active duty) and used as a military unit, the POTUS is their boss. The pentagon has enough red tape, without having to clear orders through 50 govenors.
    When they are just "called up", but not activated, they are operating as an enforcement/defense arm of the govenor.

    Just as the Coast Guard used to be treasury dept, except when operating with the military in time of war.

    Whether the boss is one or the other, they are still required to obey "lawful" orders, and disobey "unlawful" orders. That doesn't change.
     

    Sylvain

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 30, 2010
    77,313
    113
    Normandy
    When the unit is "activated" (placed on active duty) and used as a military unit, the POTUS is their boss. The pentagon has enough red tape, without having to clear orders through 50 govenors.
    When they are just "called up", but not activated, they are operating as an enforcement/defense arm of the govenor.

    Just as the Coast Guard used to be treasury dept, except when operating with the military in time of war.

    Whether the boss is one or the other, they are still required to obey "lawful" orders, and disobey "unlawful" orders. That doesn't change.

    Yep that's what Wikipedia says.
    I would be curious to know what's an "unlwaful" order according to them.
    For me taking weapons from civilians is clearly unconstitutional and unlawful.

    I know that many LEOs and military members are "oath keepers". :yesway:
    Will they keep their oath that's another question though. :dunno:

    The Oath Keepers feel that their sworn oath to the American Constitution, grants them not only the right, but the duty to refuse unconstitutional orders. The Oath Keepers organization has published a list of orders that they will not obey:
    1. Orders to disarm the American people.
    2. Orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people.
    3. Orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
    4. Orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
    5. Orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
    6. Any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
    7. Any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
    8. Orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."
    9. Any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
    10. Any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
     

    SSGSAD

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    14   0   0
    Dec 22, 2009
    12,404
    48
    Town of 900 miles
    Yep that's what Wikipedia says.
    I would be curious to know what's an "unlwaful" order according to them.
    For me taking weapons from civilians is clearly unconstitutional and unlawful.

    I know that many LEOs and military members are "oath keepers". :yesway:
    Will they keep their oath that's another question though. :dunno:

    An example of an "unlawful" order, would be ordering you to shoot or kill, another Soldier.....
     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    92,863
    113
    Merrillville
    Like the police, some will, some won't.
    They are different people. You can't say all will do one or the other.
    Ever get all INGO members to agree on something? And we're only 25k people. Harder to get more to agree.
     

    thebishopp

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 26, 2010
    1,286
    38
    Indiana
    I retired, from INARNG, 22 years, plus 4 in USMC, and I can ASSURE you, the State Guard, answers to the GOVERNOR..... When I was deployed, the Pres. ASKED the GOVERNOR, to deploy us... YES, while on AD, Guard members are paid under Title 10, Federal Money.... BUT, the State budget, comes from the Fed., anyway ..... NOT really much difference.... I am sure Jeremy, can tell you MORE ..... I Ret., 5 years ago, things COULD have changed..... :twocents:

    I was active army and reserves and that was my understanding of the guard units as well.

    When I brought up this fact one said "well, yeah technically we are supposed to answer to the Governor", but then the other one (the more senior) stated "we've been federalized" and "it' doesn't say "guard" on our ID cards".
     

    thebishopp

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 26, 2010
    1,286
    38
    Indiana
    Yep that's what Wikipedia says.
    I would be curious to know what's an "unlwaful" order according to them.
    For me taking weapons from civilians is clearly unconstitutional and unlawful.

    I know that many LEOs and military members are "oath keepers". :yesway:
    Will they keep their oath that's another question though. :dunno:

    Their opinion (and these are 10 -15+ year e-8s and one, the younger, is making the transition to officer) is that any order (short of something like gunning down unarmed citizens) would be a "lawful" order and that the one responsible for giving an order that is "unlawful" would be the superior officer.

    Basically they adamantly took the "I was just following orders" defense and really believed that they were not responsible. They were just required to follow the order and it wasn't their responsibility to determine if the order was lawful or unlawful as it was always lawful to follow an order from a superior (with the mass killing of unarmed citizens comment of course).

    Yes it was an odd and somewhat confusing argument. Essentially their argument was an abdication of responsibility. They just followed orders.
     

    jsharmon7

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    119   0   0
    Nov 24, 2008
    7,822
    113
    Freedonia
    The belief is that as long as they were following orders then they were "safe" and if the orders were "unlawful" then it would be the superior that ordered them to do it who would face any type of disciplinary actions. When I brought up the war crime prosecution of nazi soldiers, and how the "I was just following orders" defense was not accepted, they said that one can't compare what the nazi's did too American soldiers carrying out their orders because they wouldn't be rounding up millions of people and killing them.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qDt1WDzhmU
     

    FortWayneGunfighter

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Oct 13, 2012
    451
    18
    The desert...
    We all know much of the military and law enforcement will go against the citizens of the United States if told to. It's no secret.

    Thats a dirty F**king lie as a servicemember in a "real branch" i know that myself and the Marines in my PLT wouldnt do a damn thing close to turning on civi's take of your tinfoil hat and get to know some servicemembers who joined for something other than free college and a paycheck i promise you i sure as hell dont do my job for the paycheck i sometimes get; and since i seriously doubt you have served why dont you go to afghanistan before you talk trash about those who do serve especially when it doing so they especially infantrymen such as myself lay down our f**king lives for you and millions of other people that we DONT know just to have the same people say we would turn on them in a heartbeat i know my best friend didnt die in Iraq to have people bad mouth myself and our beloved Corps. You best be thinking long and hard about the **** we do and what we give up before you say another word of disrespect. If this rant gets me in trouble for cursing or going off on you so be it im tiered of people who I serve and am sworn to protect to the point of giving up my life tell me **** like that. Good day and Semper f**king FI
     
    Last edited:

    FortWayneGunfighter

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Oct 13, 2012
    451
    18
    The desert...
    As for the order to disarm citizens they'd have to take my guns too unfortunately they were lost in a boating accident and i would do my damnedest to prevent it nor would i carry out such a order. The majority or the Marine Corps owns guns privately they would not follow such an order as well. As i said before take off your tinfoil hat we're people just like you not mindless drones.
     

    rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    It can't happen here

    1912: Lawrence, Massachusetts
    377780_291226004248241_1509792616_n.jpg


    1942: Pasadena, California
    283329_453771781326995_2059287105_n.jpg


    1968: Memphis, Tennessee
    i-am-a-man.jpg


    1969: Berkeley, California
    522837_443094449061395_1733820889_n.jpg


    1970: Kent, Ohio


    2005: New Orleans, Louisiana
    69415_453790854658421_1656876028_n.png
     
    Top Bottom