Is the National Guard a "Militia?" YES! 

We are militia

So theres a state ran milita (national guard) and then theres the non-state ran militia (the people).

Show whatever piece of paper u want if it’s funded by the government it not a militia just an extension of the regular military.

You dont seem to know much about the military, National Guard isnt a militia, they get deployed over seas like everybody else, they go through the same training like every body, they got to the same basic training sites and do the same thing like every one else, they have and use the same equipment and weapons like every one else soldiers can transfer back and forth between the reserves and active duty, What people dont understand is that the national guard is like the Defense of the us army, the acitve duty soldiers are the offensive side of the military, but theire all technically one team but with different playing positions, and soldiers can and do constantly transfer back and forth between the two, and yes the National Vuard does get deployed over seas and yes they do see combat, please do more research beforeaking ubsurd claims. I understand your just stating what the rules and laws say but rugulations and rules can be wrong, especially when their created by people who know nothing about the topic in which theyre talking about, just like people i can name who want to ban certain fire arms just because they look sacary,

“National guard is play army”- my Vietnam veteran grandpa and I totally agree 😂

The information in the video is not accurate. Below is an explanation that I drafted a few years ago on this exact subject. It was a response to a journalist who wrote about this subject. Here is the relevant part of the correspondence. I hope it helps. “Title 10 U.S. Code Section 246 - Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are- (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.” The basic problems here are that - First, the Constitution allows for no “militia of the United States” at all. In contradistinction to the “Armies” that Congress “may raise and support”, (See U.S. Const. Art. 1 Sec. 8 Cl. 12) and the Navy that it may “provide and maintain”, (See U.S. Const. Art 1 Sec. 8 Cl 13) and which the Constitution recognizes as “the Army and Navy of the United States”, (See U.S. Const. Art. 2 Sec. 2 Cl. 1) Congress enjoys no power whatsoever to create such a National “militia”. Rather, the only true constitutional Militia are the Militia of the Several States”. These may be employed in the Service of the United States” (See U.S. Const. Art. 1 Sec 8 Cl 16) and may be “called into actual service of the United States” (U.S. Const. Art 2 Sec. 2 Cl.1) but even then, they remain “the Militia of the several states”. The constitutional duties they may perform for the General Government do not change their constitutional identities as State establishments.Second, as evidenced by some one hundred and fifty years of pre-constitutional American history, “the Militia of the several States” should be composed today of a least all males from sixteen to sixty years of age, not some less inclusive set - and now, with the emancipation of women, of some significant portion of their population in appropriate ways, too. Third, the Constitution allows for no dichotomy between “organized militia” and unorganized militia”, but instead mandates that Congress “provide for organizing” the Militia in their entirety, with no exceptions, exclusions, or excuses express or implied (See U.S.Const. Art. 1 Sec. 8 Cl. 16) - other than, of course the types of exemptions allowed under the pre-constitutional Colonial and State Militia Acts, that are part and parcel of the constitutional definition of “Militia”. And “where no exception is made in terms, none will be made by mere implication or construction.” (See Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 37 U.S. (12 Peters) 657, 722 (1838) The Framers knew how to draft legal language that distinguished between a whole and its parts. Indeed, precisely with respect to the Militia in that very same clause, they empowered Congress “to provide…for governing such part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States”. That they extended the power to govern” only to “Such Part of the Militia”, but the power to “organize” to “the Militia” without any qualification, cannot be accidental, but must mean that the power to “organize” applies to the whole. (See Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553, 572-573 (1933) On this rule of construction) This makes perfect practical sense, because the whole of “the Militia of the several states” should be “organized” to such uniform National standards that any “Part of them” that may be called forth” (See U.S. Const. Art. 1 Sec. 8 Cl. 15) can be expected to perform its assigned duties adequately; whereas only that particular “Parts of them as may be employed in the service of the United States” needs actually be “governed” in conformity with those duties when such an occasion arises. True enough, until common Americans receive or acquire some organization, arms, discipline, and training - whether by Congress, or in default of Congress by the States, or in default of both of them by WE THE PEOPLE on their own - they constitute “Militia” in name only and are not well regulated”. Yet even the name by itself retains legal significance, because no amount of neglect by or lack of understanding of the Militia clauses of the constitution by Congress or the States can excise “the Militia of the several States” from the Constitution, extinguish the duty of all able-bodied Americans to serve in them, and eliminate “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” for that purpose. So, by gutting their practical substance, “unorganized militia” are a constitutional impossibility. Fourth, Although plainly “organized”, both the National Guard and the Naval Militia, and their State components as well, are not - and constitutionally cannot be any parts of “the Militia of the several States”, if only because they are not co-extensive with, WE THE PEOPLE as a whole. (See U.S. Const. Art. 1 Sec. 10 Cl 3, Legal and Historical Aspects of the Militia”, 26 Yale Law Journal 471 (1917); “The Militia Clauses of the Constitution”, 54 Harvard Law Review 181 (1940)) And, Fifth, Congress has left what it calls “the unorganized militia” unorganized, unarmed, undisciplined, and ungoverned by any statute of the General Government - notwithstanding that Congress’s explicit authority and duty in the premises is precisely “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employedin the Service of the United States”, not to provide against such readiness, or arbitrarily to redefine “the Militia of the several States so as to exclude millions of eligible individuals. By consigning huge members of Americans to “the unorganized militia”, and relegating others to no “militia” at all, Congress prevents itself from performing to a satisfactory degree its own vital constitutional duty “to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”, because these tens of millions of Americans are wholly unprepared to be “called forth” with the organization, arms, and discipline necessary and proper for those functions. The idea that the National Guard is not the militia is mentioned in the Report of Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Ninty-Seventh Congress February 1982 - The Right to Keep and Bear Arms They are quoted as saying: “That the National Guard is not the “Militia” referred to in the second amendment is even clearer today. Congress has organized the National Guard under its power to “raise and support armies” (authors note: even this is incorrect since Congress doesn’t have the power to raise and support its own Militia which distinct from raising and supporting armies which congress does have. If there is any constitutionality to the National Guard, it’s under the authority found Art. 1 Sec. 10 Cl 3: No state shall maintain Troops and Ships of war in times of peace without the consent of Congress) and its power to “Provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia”. This Congress chose to do in the interests of organizing reserve military units which were not limited in deployment by the strictures of our power over the constitutional militia, which can be called forth only “to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.” The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C. Sec. 246(a).” Which brings us back to the importance of the article and the general overall lack of understanding of this subject matter by just about everyone. What we have is a misunderstanding that the National Guard plays the modern role of the state Militia which factually isn’t true. And as a result of this fact, we have a constitutional void that must be filled. But because the Congress has failed in its responsibilities with respect to the Militia, then the power falls back on the states, but since the states have also failed in its responsibilities with respect to the militias then it falls back on the People and since the People in general have failed then it falls on anyone who is capable and willing. One cannot fault Senator Corbin for attempting to take back the responsibility from the state as this is exactly what he is required to do. It’s just unfortunate that the education on this matter is so lacking. Until then you will continue to see individual groups calling themselves Militia, some of which may have questionable motives while others do their best to have legal standing in some capacity to take on that role due to the complete breakdown of the true constitutional militia structure in this country, it’s unfortunate that they will continue to be labeled in a negative way for simply knowing enough to get themselves in trouble but not enough to get themselves out while those who paint them with a Militia label forgets that they refer to one of the institutions so revered by the founders that they declared it to be the only thing necessary in our constitution. Sincerely, Edward Brotherton

I still think of that law a 10 USC 311, noting the sub a vs b distinction, even after that Chapter was revised and recodified in 2016. I doubt the historic iron sights and pre-14th or 19th Am sexism could survive a serious challenge, nor the age limits at least for sub b persons. The historic precursor that used to mandate all able males keep a military long arm and no fewer than 300 rounds at home at all times, and stay "well regulated", aka able to shoot precisely and work strategically, and that flipped between ages 17 and 18 in a few historic revisions, may speak to meaning of the current law. As does Bill Merkle's work cited in Bruen, though he's coy about stating that original intent of RTKBA given prejudices among politicians including judges.

You are constitutionally incorrect, and those jump wings don't lend you any credibility.

The Guard are paramilitary militia members called upon in times where it’s a threat to the homeland however Well free certainly fits inside any budget lol I don’t need a paycheck I need a reason money no good.😂

Constitution ArtI.S8.C15.1 Congress's Power to Call Militias Article I, Section 8, Clause 15: [The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; . . . The states as well as Congress may prescribe penalties for failure to obey the President’s call of the militia. They also have a concurrent power to aid the National Government by calls under their own authority, and in emergencies may use the militia to put down armed insurrection.1 The Federal Government may call out the militia in case of civil war; its authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and to carry on war.2 The act of February 28, 1795,3 which delegated to the President the power to call out the militia, was held constitutional.4 A militiaman who refused to obey such a call was not employed in the service of the United States so as to be subject to the article of war, but was liable to be tried for disobedience of the act of 1795.5

Holy crap (sorry I know you want me to talk how I would talk in court on this channel)….is that a paratrooper pin? 0-0

There is a 3rd kind thats growing and has never been seen before

Honestly I see the national guard as basically your state Nations military that's the way I see it to be fair I see that every man woman and child who isn't a part of that or the offensive military just militia. It's kind of the way I see it I think it's more accurate

hello ^^ I also recently learned about this thing called the State Guard which is separate from the National guard. I don’t exactly know where they fit into all this but I learned about them when researching modern militias (got into an argument with someone about the national guard not being a militia….. etc etc)

I knew. You covered this somewhere. 😂

We The People are the Militia 🇺🇲

I'm just a Marine.

There is no such thing as an unorganized militia in the contexts you are using. Remember when this country was founded there was no standing army and states had to call upon regular citizens to defend their territories. The people are the militia, and I don’t care what any code says, an organization that can be federalized is not a militia it is just another military that is primarily controlled by the state.

OMG Stop being a neoliberal with all that statute sir.

The law might technically say that, but you get a thumbs down because I don’t like your douchie rich politician demeanor. and I agree with @jasonluera5058. Just because the government classifies almost any male as part of a militia, doesn’t mean they’re right. The government also allowed slavery by law. For almost 90 years

Sorry buddy you missed the third militia... the single family home militia... get off the internet

F! The code ! that’s what the government want you to think ! This is the most ignorant video I have seen this year