Jump to content

Talk:State defense force/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

US only 100 years old?

The sentence beginning: "From its founding until the early 1900s, the United States ..." is either referring to something entirely unclear or has a drastically inaccurate age for the U.S.Paalexan (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

  • The US was colonized by Europe from the 16th to 18th centuries, declared independence in 1776, and wrote the current Constitution in 1787. So the US as a independent nation was just a bit more than 100 years old in 1900.Todd Gallagher (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

Should the title be capitalized? Isopropyl 01:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Size

How do the various forces compare in terms of size, funding, organisation, training etc. - Matthew238 02:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

District of Columbia

OK, presently (March 2008) there is no official SDF for the District of Columbia. There is an organized group of citizens attempting to form a SDF. Until it is formed officially then it should not be included in this list. To be fair, maybe we could put a link in a See also section? Any comments? Streltzer (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The DCDF was added to the list of acttive SDFs again. I have removed it, as they are not a legally authorized State Defense Force. SSaint04 (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

They will never be a "State" Defense Force because DC is NOT a state and the same rules, laws and regulations don't apply.

If the Mayor of DC says "I want a Defense Force" and authorizes them through proclamation then there will be a DC Defense Force. I know that currently there is a unit that is awaiting the final draft to be released from the Mayor's office authorizing them into existence. We can quibble all day long about who they are and what they are but the fact remains that the Mayor's office in DC is in the process of creating this organization. You can return and remove them from the sight a thousand times but that doesn't change the fact that there in the process of becoming law within the boundaries of the District of Columbia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.244.128 (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand the "State" differentiation. However, the issue is what the enabling legislation and regulations specify for the DC. Can the non-federal USC title ever apply to DC? Apparently there's no problem with territorial governments since Puerto Rico State Guard exists. The District is a different kind of constitutional and legal entity; it's far from clear to me that the Mayor has SDF authority equivalent to the state and territorial Governors. Specifically,

Article One, Section Eight of the United States Constitution grants the U.S. Congress "exclusive jurisdiction" over the city. The District did not have an elected local government until the passage of the 1973 Home Rule Act.

For instance the CG of the DC National Guard is appointed by the President; not the mayor. Isn't DC's budget approved by Congress? SDFs cannot be federalized; how would that relate in DC? Aren't DC employees already federal employees? I'd like to see quotes and citations for relevant legislation and regulations.
SBaker43 (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Federal law allows DC to have an SDF. 32 USC 109 as well as the 1987 NGR 10-4 mention DC having one. However, it is a STATE (which means "government") defense force, not a private club formed by people wanting one. The federal law says the states must create one "as provided by its laws." In the case of DC, federal law says it must be commanded by the commanding general of the DC National Guard, since they do not have a governor, only a mayor permitted by Congress. As for their being "federal," federal law treats the DC National Guard just like other National Guards--under Title 32, Title 10, and SAD status. Todd Gallagher (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Just so everyone is aware, The DCDF is not anywhere close to getting a resolution or statement of support for their legalization to operate as a Defense Force or State Guard within the National Capitol Region and I don't believe they ever will be. I have personally dealt with this group trying to determine what they were all about after being approached for recruitment. I assure you that the DC GOV and the DC National Guard want nothing to do with these clowns and there never will be a DCDF under their leadership and direction. I work in the NCR and to quote several of my associates, the DCDF is as hot as nuclear waste to the GOV. The problem is that no one wants to do anything about them and this empowers them and they just keep showing up to events. No one will ever take a group of people seriously when there is 9 people that call themselves a defense force, and all of them are officers with the rank of 0-4 and above with 3 of them wearing stars on their collar. I live here and see this crap going on all of the time. I don't care what outsiders say or what someone from the DCDF says. Not sure how to sign this entry so I will just sign it "Concerned State Military Guy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.47.19 (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The DCDF was added to the list of acttive SDFs again. I have removed it, as they are not a legally authorized State Defense Force. Et0048 (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Georgia

I see that someone has posted a link to the Georgia Naval Militia. I know that some states do, but Georgia does not have a naval militia.

By law, Georgia does have a naval militia; it is just not currently organized. Similar to how the SDF can be opened and shut down at any given time.Todd Gallagher (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

2005 Department of Defense Report

Does anyone know what 2005 Department of Defense Report the author is describing when he/she discusses the states that currently have State Defense Forces? I've searched the web and the Department of Defense website but I have not been able to find any reports discussing the current number of states having SDFs. If anyone knows what source is used I'd like to know for my work on my PhD.

Thanks.

192.206.187.61 (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC) John M. john.morgan@gasdf.org

I, too, can not find the 2005 DoD report. I have replaced it with a reference to the SGAUS. Newguy34 (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The wiki article states that the National Guard Bureau (NGB) "regulates" the State Defense Forces (SDF). However, 32 USC Section 109 provides for states to have their own SDF. National Guard Regulation 10-4 (of Sept 1987, still in effect without modification although woefully overdue for a revision/update) uses somewhat dated language and doctrinal concepts but essentially remains true to 32 USC 109 intent. NGR 10-4 provides for the National Guard Bureau to coordinate and assist with SDFs, as a Federal-level Point of contact. NGR 10-4 does not grant the NGB any authority per se over the SDFs...only the coordination of certain collateral duties involving Federal support, uniform authorization, etc. Under our carefully constructed Federal system, the states retain their own sovereignty, and 32 USC 109 recoginizes the inherent potential for states to legislate, organize, train, and equip their own lawfully constituted State Defense Forces as separate from the blended Title 32 USC National Guard. To the point where NGR 10-4 reiterates 32 USC 109 in that SDF as organized entities cannot be "drafted" or "called into Federal service." However, the individual state citizens that comprise an otherwise lawfully constituted SDF can be called into Federal service as any other citizen of the United States. The wikipedia entry should probably replace the word "regulate" with "coordinate," as more descriptive and correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.16.54 (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Colorado

colorado has a state defense force. they also sponsor an airborne school, which awards the air force basic parachutist badge for 5 static line jumps. the jumpmasters at the school are the same one that qualify the cadets at the air force academy.66.141.179.10 (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)j.crowson

There are actually two organizations in Colorado. The Governor's Military Office (with a state defense force of one individual) and the Colorado State Defense Force (Provisional) at www.cosdf.us, which is recognized by the State Guard Association of the US (www.sgaus.org) as the State Defense Force of the State of Colorado. SGAUS is used as a reliable source referenced in other parts of this article, so I have updated the article to reflect this information. Newguy34 (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Todd Gallagher re: reverting my edits at State Defense Forces, please do not do so again when they are properly sourced. It does not matter to Wiki whether the DoD or Captain Kangaroo is involved with something. Wiki is about reliable sources, not necessarily truth. The personal opinion you expressed re: SGAUS violates Wiki's NPOV rule. Thank you. Newguy34 (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry that you fail to understand what a state defense force is. Under 32 USC 109, Congress created these military units so that we would have a reserve force in case National Guards were federalized and deployed overseas. Colorado disbanded its SDF and today there is an illegal group that claims to be an SDF. Just because Hillbilly Bob and his buddies claim to be an SDF, or a Marine unit, or an Army unit, does not make them so. This is Colorado website for the TAG: http://www.dmva.state.co.us/ . Show me where the SDF is. Nowhere, because it does not exist. If you continue to use the SGAUS as a source, where even it states that it is a "provisional" SDF, I will continue to re-edit. I am sorry you fail to comprehend that "provisional" in this case means illegal. Todd Gallagher (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what I think. Wiki is about what reliable sources think. It is an encyclopedia, remember, not your personal opinion? I will caution you on two matters: 1) Wiki's rules on civility and 2) not engaging in edit warring over properly cited edits from reliable sources, both of which are subject to blocking. Newguy34 (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry you do not comprehend personal opinion. The government says there are only 23 government SDF's. You want to claim that an organization run by Hillbilly Bob is an SDF because a club that he is a member of says he is. And even they say he is a provisional. That is not a reliable source.
If I told you there were 51 states because an organization's website said there were, could I post that? Of course not. There are only 23 SDF's in the US.Todd Gallagher (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
If there was a reliable source that said there were 51 states, then yes, it is includable in Wiki. The SGAUS website lists Texas, California, Tennesee, etc. as SDF's. Does that make their website any less of a reliable source related to Colorado? No. Let's go to dispute resolution if you want to be dense about this. Remember, your opinion or the DoD's views on this are not what Wiki is about. SGAUS qualifies as a reliable source and the information should be included in the article. And, you might want to lighten up on the personal attacks. Newguy34 (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
As I posted on your page, the SGAUS claims Washington, D.C., has an SDF. But the very "SDF" that they link to refutes that it is an SDF: "The DC Defense Force is not a government entity, nor is it a state defense force as defined by Chapter 32 Section 109 (c) of the United States Code, although it is seeking such status. The DCDF is a purely local organization, and its operations are limited primarily to within the District of Columbia." It also states that North Carolina has an SDF. The very "SDF" it links to also admits it is not an SDF: "The NCSGA is the North Carolina based unit of the State Guard Association of the United States." It even admits that the SGAUS recognizes no official SDF's: "The SGAUS does not support private groups who may call themselves "militia," but who are not officially recognized, unless the group is bona fide and seeking such official state recognition." We will not recognize an illegal group unless it is trying to become legal. Yeah, that is reliable.Todd Gallagher (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The text that you keep reverting says that the "SGAUS website lists...active SDFs in 27 states or territories," which is a true statement. It also lists Colorado, as it is listed on the SGAUS's website, which you keep reverting because you don't think Colorado qualifies. The article and SGAUS doesn't say if Colorado's is a "real" SDF. It doesn't and the SGAUS doesn't say whether the DoD is right or wrong, merely that it lists them. I say list them all and let the reader decide, not you or me. Newguy34 (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to insert an article or note that there are several private organizations seeking to establish an SDF in their state, then fine. There are several. Go ahead and list them. But how many SDF's exist is a fact: 23. The State Guard Association has as much say on the legality of SDF's as the Black Panthers have on who is president. There is none. The National Guard Bureau regulates the state defense forces, as dictated in NGR 10-4. Only 23 exist. Go ahead and insert an article on the SGAUS and how it recognizes and lobbies for several private organizations hoping to get SDF's created in their state. Todd Gallagher (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And yet the very Georgia SDF website being used to reference the DoD's 2005 report (which we don't know if it is the final writing on this matter by the DoD) lists both the SGAUS and the SGAUS's MEMS Academy. Seems that if it is good enough for a "real" SDF, it should be good enough for everyone. Newguy34 (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The SGAUS is a national association of members of the SDF's as well as supporters. Just like the NGAUS for members of the National Guard or the ROA for reserve officers, etc. It is not a government entity. The National Rifle Association annually awards the President's Hundred Tab, which is the highest tab awarded in the Army (above the Special Forces, Ranger and Sapper Tabs). The NRA is a private organization. Just as the Army allows members to accept the NRA's President's Hundred Tab as an official award, the Georgia SDF, along with most SDF's, allow their members to accept the SGAUS MEMS Badge. Once again, this changes nothing when it comes to authorized SDF's. I don't understand your difficulty comprehending this, unless you are just stuck on not having been wrong. The Colorado, North Carolina, and Washington, D.C., SDF's all admit they are not SDF's, but rather SDF "wannabes" who have formed associations to hopefully one day become one. Nonetheless, they are not SDF's, just like Hillbilly Bob's Redneck Militia is not an SDF.Todd Gallagher (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your response that completely answers a question, which no one asked; I understand all of this. That swooshing sound you hear is the point I am making completely passing by you. Again, it doesn't matter to Wiki what the "truth" is by your account, the DoD's account, Hillbilly Bob's account, or any one else's. The plain and simple fact is that Wiki is about taking what reliable sources say about a matter and including them in this encyclopedia without us editing them for "fact" or our viewpoints. The fact is that the SGAUS recognizes Colorado as a SDF, regardless of whether you like it, I like it, or anyone else likes it. I might suggest two readings of what Wiki is (and what Wiki is not) and call me in the morning. Wiki is not the official anything. Wiki doesn't choose sides. Wiki just puts it all out there so that the readers can decide. I don't care about whether Colorado, or Washington DC or Timbuktu has a "real" SDF or a bunch of yahoos dressing up in camo and calling themselves the "Provisional Guards of the Galactican Empire." I will make a few edits to the article in an attempt to delineate the difference between those SDFs recognized by the DoD and those recognized by the SGAUS, which I hope will suffice. If not, I am confident you will quickly revert them. Newguy34 (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Todd Gallagher let's not have another edit war. Please point me to the part of the DoD's 2005 report that says which SDFs are recognized by their respective states and which are not. If you are not able to do that, then I can only assume that your reversion edits are original research, which is explicitly forbidden on Wikipedia, and will be treated as vandalism. Newguy34 (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The 2005 DoD report list that there are 23 legal SDF's. This would make 22 in the states and 1 in Puerto Rico (since it specifically does list Puerto Rico). NGR 10-4, which has a link on the site, states that all SDF's will be operated by the state TAG and regulated by the National Guard Bureau. All the SDF's that are listed are the legally established SDF's. You can click on them to see they are operated by their state, not by a redneck "militia" under the command of some Hillbilly Bob. Washington, D.C., North Carolina, and Colorado do not have legally established SDF's. They have associations that desire to be SDF's. If the Ku Klux Klan decided to form paramilitary units and give them military rank, they would not be any part of the Armed Forces or of any legally established Naval Militia (Title 10) or SDF (Title 32). These groups are no different than the KKK.Todd Gallagher (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The article as it currently stands, says exactly that. It says: 1) that the DoD reports 23 SDFs, 2) the SGAUS recognizes and supports four additional SDFs that are seeking state recognition. This is not a question of "legality", it is a question of state rcognition. But, until you can point me to where the DoD specifies which SDFs it considered to be recognized by the states, everything else is correctly stated in the article, even if it does not meet with your viewpoint of it. Wiki's rules are clear, no original research and no synthesis. If you want different information in the article, simply produce the reliable sources. Newguy34 (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, if you want to state that there are hillbilly groups which desire to be SDF's, the fine. But until they are SDF's, then they are just that, not SDF's. Just because a group calls itself an SDF, does not make it so. 32 USC 109 defines SDF's, and these hillbilly groups were not founded by their states. These were founded as associations dreaming of becoming states, even though states have laws against organizations entering the SDF, which are already legal in these states, just not formed.Todd Gallagher (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
You still have to show us the reliable source, or the text in the article stays as is. This is a very simple request: no personal opinion, no commentary, no synthesis, just show me in the public domain where it says anything contrary to what is in the article (which says that the DoD recognizes 23--although doesn't say which 23--and the SGAUS recognizes four others who are seeking state recognition). The entire history of militias in this country is based on volunteer organizations seeking state recognition, but that is a different discussion. It's an uniquely American tradition, even though you don't seem to respect the tradition, given your comparison of these apparently well-meaning groups to the KKK. Newguy34 (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, you admit yourself these are not SDF's. SDF's are not the same as volunteer organizations. SDF's are legal, military forces operated exclusively under the jurisdiction of state, not by Hillbilly Bob. There is no difference in comparison to the KKK or the Black Panthers. Federal law makes these groups illegal, since they violate laws pertaining to the wear of military uniforms. If you want to create a page for militias and private organizations forming them, go ahead, but these are not State Defense Forces, as defined by 32 USC 109. In case you have some further difficulty comprehending the difference between the Guard, SDF, and some hillbilly groups, here is a nice National Guard publication: [quote] National Guard Fact Sheet

National Guard and Militias

The National Guard is the organized militia reserved to the states by the Constitution of the United States under Article 1, Section 8. In peacetime, the National Guard is commanded by the governor of each respective state or territory. When ordered to active duty for mobilization or called into federal service for emergencies, units of the Guard are under the control of the appropriate service secretary. The militia clause reserves the appointment of officers and the authority of training the militia (according to Congressionally prescribed standards) to the states. In 1903, Congress officially designated the organized militia as the National Guard and established procedures for training and equipping the Guard to active duty military standards. The FY04 National Defense Authorization Act amended Title 32, United States Code, Section 325 to make it possible for a National Guard officer to be in command of federal (Active Duty) and state (National Guard Title 32 and State Active Duty) forces simultaneously. State Defense Force: The State Defense Force is a form of militia and is authorized to the states by federal statute (Title 32 U.S. Code 109). State Defense Forces are not entities of the federal government. They are organized, equipped, trained, employed and funded according to state laws and are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the governor. Should the National Guard be mobilized for war, specialized operations such as humanitarian or peacekeeping missions or called into federal service during national emergencies, the State Defense Force will assume the National Guard's mission for the state's security. Unorganized Militia: Federal and state laws generally define the militia as "all able-bodied males between ages 17 and 45." Federal statute (Title 10 U.S. Code 311) defines the unorganized militia as all members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. [b]Self-Proclaimed Private Militias: Some private individuals, without government sanction, have banded together and styled themselves "militias." These militias answer to no government, they have no formal or informal relationship with the National Guard and are not state-recognized organizations. They are private organizations, some paramilitary in nature, that use the term militia in their names.[/b] Membership Requirements: National Guard: 1) Must be a citizen or permanent resident alien; must be at least 17 and not have reached their 35th birthday at time of enlistment; must pass an Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, a Standard Armed Forces Physical Examination and be of good moral character; must be available for initial active duty training; and must agree to participate in an initial tour of active duty training of at least 12 weeks. Individuals with prior service in any branch of the U.S. military may receive credit for that service and join the National Guard at an age greater than 35.

(Current as of 15 Jun 05) 2) State Defense Force: Persons serving in the Armed Forces and persons who are members of Reserve components of the Armed Forces cannot be members of a State Defense Force. For more information, contact the NGB Public Affairs Office. [/quote] Todd Gallagher (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Very nice research, but the text in the article is still accurate and properly sourced, so it stays. It says there are 23 SDFs per the DoD (the "official" SDFs) and the SGAUS supports four others seeking state recognition (your "Hillbilly Bob" ones). Why do you dislike the other SDFs so much? Newguy34 (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
They violate federal law (as well as many state laws) by wearing military uniforms; they attempt to identify themselves as SDF's when by law they are not; and they think they can form a provisional SDF when state laws all prohibit the enlistment or commissioning of associations. The National Guard sums its up: "Self-Proclaimed Private Militias: Some private individuals, without government sanction, have banded together and styled themselves 'militias.' These militias answer to no government, they have no formal or informal relationship with the National Guard and are not state-recognized organizations. They are private organizations, some paramilitary in nature, that use the term militia in their names." If these groups did not violate the law, and formed true lobbying groups to form an SDF, then that would be fine. Instead, they violate the law to attempt to change the law. None of these will ever become SDF's. Maybe some of their members can later enlist or apply for a commission, but it cannot happen as an organization. The law prohibits it. They choose to ignore this, just like the very laws they violate.Todd Gallagher (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
All of which is your personal opinion, regardless of how often you have a temper tantrum and pound the table, "They're illegal, they're illegal!" There is no federal law against wearing BDU's with "Texas" nameplate rather than "US Army". There is no law against wearing the ACU. There is no law against wearing a black beret. If there were, every army surplus store in the nation would be out of business. The potential violation of law comes with the wearing of "distinctive branch or US military rank insignia". To your second point, by looking at the Colorado site, they seem to swear an oath of allegiance to the US and State of Colorado constitutions, and promise to abide by the orders of the Governor and the AG. Hardly the "militia that swears allegiance to no one" the NGB is referring to. Again, taking Colorado as an example, state law specifically allows for a SDF, quite the contrary to the "law prohibiting it" as you suggest. If the article were entitled "State-Recognized State Defense Forces" then we can work on it, but we don't get to decide what to sanction in the article and what not to sanction. We can only put the facts out there and let the reader decide. So, maybe I can help you in your personal crusade. Where in the public domain is this NGB fact sheet you referenced. Can you give me a website or something so we can consider using it in the article? I am willing to help, but you have got to quit acting so defensive like they wouldn't let you in Hillbilly Bob's army. Newguy34 (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.ngb.army.mil/media/factsheets/militias_factsheet.doc . You really cannot get into this argument of legal versus illegal. Otherwise I could go to the Army website and start listing illegal Army groups using your same argument that the article title does not say "Legal U.S. Army" but instead "U.S. Army." Sorry, but "State" Defense Force means just that. If you want an article on Rump Defense Forces, then go for it. As for the uniforms, try again. Federal law prohibits any uniform similar to the Army one. Not just distinctive devices. Just because uniforms are sold doe snot make it legal. It also gets into REASON. If a person is dressing as a soldier for pretend, then that is fine (the law actually allows this). But these guys are posers who pretend to be official. They obviously have people like you fooled, at least at first glance. This is the crime. 10 USC 771 seems quite clear: "Except as otherwise provided by law, no person except a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, as the case may be, may wear— (1) the uniform, or a distinctive part of the uniform, of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps; or (2) a uniform any part of which is similar to a distinctive part of the uniform of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps. "

10 USC 772: "(a) A member of the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard may wear the uniform prescribed for the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard, as the case may be. (b) A member of the Naval Militia may wear the uniform prescribed for the Naval Militia. (c) A retired officer of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps may bear the title and wear the uniform of his retired grade. (d) A person who is discharged honorably or under honorable conditions from the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps may wear his uniform while going from the place of discharge to his home, within three months after his discharge. (e) A person not on active duty who served honorably in time of war in the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps may bear the title, and, when authorized by regulations prescribed by the President, wear the uniform, of the highest grade held by him during that war. (f) While portraying a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, an actor in a theatrical or motion-picture production may wear the uniform of that armed force if the portrayal does not tend to discredit that armed force. (g) An officer or resident of a veterans’ home administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs may wear such uniform as the Secretary of the military department concerned may prescribe. (h) While attending a course of military instruction conducted by the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, a civilian may wear the uniform prescribed by that armed force if the wear of such uniform is specifically authorized under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the military department concerned. (i) Under such regulations as the Secretary of the Air Force may prescribe, a citizen of a foreign country who graduates from an Air Force school may wear the appropriate aviation badges of the Air Force. (j) A person in any of the following categories may wear the uniform prescribed for that category: (1) Members of the Boy Scouts of America. (2) Members of any other organization designated by the Secretary of a military department. "

18 USC 702: "Whoever, in any place within the jurisdiction of the United States or in the Canal Zone, without authority, wears the uniform or a distinctive part thereof or anything similar to a distinctive part of the uniform of any of the armed forces of the United States, Public Health Service or any auxiliary of such, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both."

SDF's are authorized under NGR 10-4 and AR 670-1. Where are these paramilitary private militias authorized? You stated: "To your second point, by looking at the Colorado site, they seem to swear an oath of allegiance to the US and State of Colorado constitutions, and promise to abide by the orders of the Governor and the AG." Last time I checked, Colorado DISBANDED its SDF, with officially only one member currently in its SDF for administrative purposes only. 32 USC 109 and NGR 10-4 allow states to have SDF's, which Colorado and several other states have chosen not to do, at least at present. If this group truly uphold its so-called oath, it would not be in existence. "Sure, we will uphold the law and obey all orders, until we disagree with them." If you want a link to a militia page on Wikipedia, go for it, but these are not State Defense Forces.Todd Gallagher (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Here the Colorado rump militia even admits it is not legit: "The Colorado State defense Force (Provisional) is primarily an organization of mature, civic minded, patriotic, and honorably discharged military veterans who believe in emergency preparedness and military assistance to civil authority. Through legitimate means and the legislative process, for the past seven years and currently, it is continuing to seek official state recognition for, and the restoration and reactivation of, the Colorado State Defense Force as it existed until deactivated in the 1990s." - http://www.pownetwork.org/phonies/phonies309.htm Todd Gallagher (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

As I understand it, this dispute hinges on whether Colorado's SDF should be included on the table or not. I think as long as it is made absolutely crystal clear that it is state-recognised but not yet established in federal law, there is no harm in at least mentioning it here as it wouldn't contradict the definition given in the lead. The problem is that simply labelling it as provisional is rather ambiguous - its legal status needs to be clarified, perhaps by using a small footnote to the table. Bettia (rawr!) 16:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem there is that it is not even state recognized. It is a private organization that uses the name falsely. Colorado disbanded its SDF in the 1990's and this is not a legal militia or SDF as defined under 32 USC 109 or under state law. It would be the same as if I started a new SDF and called it the Wikipedia State Defense Force. That would not make it an SDF.Todd Gallagher (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
But, it is recognized by the State Guard Association of the US (SGAUS), similar to how it recognizes at least 24 other SDFs (both "official" and others). As such, I believe that if the text is clear that Colorado is recognized by the SGAUS (as the text currently is), it can be included. Newguy34 (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Once again, the SGAUS is not a government entity nor is it a professional association entrusted with accrediting power (such as the ABA, SACS, WAC, AMA, etc.). The SGAUS is a private association with no government affiliation. The closest it even comes to any recognition of existence is the fact that it awards the MEMS badge to anyone who meets its criteria (even though not a single class is taught by it) and various SDF's allow their soldiers to wear the MEMS badge, just like the U.S. Army allows its soldier sto wear the President's Hundred Tab which is awarded by the National Rifle Association. Last time I checked, the NRA is not a source for what units are a part of the U.S. Army, nor is the SGAUS a source for what units are SDF's. Colorado SDF is a private association that the state of Colorado does not recognize. If someone wants an article on private militias, then go for it, but it is not an SDF, just like Hillbilly Bob's Army or Rakeem's Thug Division is not a part of the U.S. Army. State Defense Forces are legal military units established under 32 USC 109 and operated by the states and territories. See NGR 10-4 as well as the National Guard factsheet. This is not one. Todd Gallagher (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Once again, I understand your arguement, but Wiki's rules are clear, namely that we don't decide "fact". If there is a reliable source(s) on it and if the text in the article is accurate solely as it relates to what the reliable source(s) says, then the information stays. Plain and simple. No personal opinions, no synthesis, no Hillbilly Bob or Rakeem's Thug (I kinda like that new one) arguements, just what the reliable sources say. If this were the DoD's encyclopedia or your encyclopedia, then things might be different, but it is Wiki's encyclopedia. We all just play by Wiki's rules. Newguy34 (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As the introductory text to the table stands at the moment, only the formally-recognised SDFs can now be listed. Therefore I've taken the step of re-adding Colorado to the table (after all, it does exist) sans SDF, and added a footnote mentioning the status of the Colorado, DC and North Carolina SDFs. As I see it, the only other option is to include all three of these states' forces and add a new column to the table stating whether the SDF is formally recognised or not. Bettia (rawr!) 11:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of the links citing the strength of each state's Defence Force seem to have fallen to Link Rot. Just a heads up. --174.103.227.151 (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Current Active Forces

Are there any current online sources that show that Massachusetts, Mississippi, or Louisiana still have active state defense forces. I believe the 2005 DoD report is out date. I cannot find any current references for these forces on any government run website. As for the New Jersey Naval unit, there are listed on the NJ government website. I believe the count of 22 is no longer accurate.22015va (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The Army Times published an article on the State Defense Forces last September: 2010 Guard and Reserve Handbook, p.6:

STATE MILITIAS

Federal Law allows states to form militias. These are reserve organizations under the authority of state governments and regulated by the National Guard Bureau.

There are two basic kinds of militias--State Defense Forces (also known as State Guards, State Military Reserves or State Militias) and Naval Militias. These forces are distinct from their state's National Guard in that they cannot be mobilized for federal service, and they are not funded by the federal government.

Twenty-two states and Puerto Rico have some form of State Defense Force or Naval Militia, or both, each with different levels of activity, state support and strength, and oriented mainly toward emergency management and homeland security missions.

Training standards vary widely from state to state. Members of State Defense Forces and Naval Militia units are volunteers and must buy their own uniforms and most, if not all, of their own equipment. They generally are not authorized to carry weaponry.

As for the New Jersey Naval Militia, it was mothballed. Check out http://www.state.nj.us/military/publications/naval/background.html . Nearly every state has laws authorizing SDF's and/or Naval Militias, but fewer than half have active units. Colorado, for instance, has a one-man SDF. So the fact that New Jersey has contact info by no means implies they have an SDF or Naval Militia anymore. Todd Gallagher (talk) 06:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

What I cannot find, is any mention (current of 2009) of the Massachusetts, Mississippi or Louisiana SDFs on any of their state's government or military websites. As state entities, there should be some mention of them on official state-level government websites.22015va (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Mississippi: http://www.ngms.state.ms.us/history/Lists/MS%20State%20Guard/AllItems.aspx
Louisiana: Apparently, in LA, all civilians who work for the state DoD, and are not in the National Guard, are required to be in the LA State Guard. Hence, it is currently organized but more of an IRR: http://www.la.ngb.army.mil/smd/Word%20Documents/SMD-H%20Form%2010%20-%20State%20Application%20%20(03-03).doc

CIVILIANS ONLY

LOUISIANA STATE GUARD – MEMBERSHIP REQUEST

I understand that unclassified positions in the Military Department, State of Louisiana, require membership in the Louisiana National Guard or Louisiana State Guard.

If not a member of the Louisiana National Guard, I understand that in order to be accepted for an unclassified state position with the Military Department, I must voluntarily apply for membership in the Louisiana State Guard. As a result of membership in the Louisiana State Guard I understand that I may be required to be available to perform duty in the event of an emergency or natural disaster. Further I understand that it will be my responsibility to ensure that I have a family plan established to care for my family if called to emergency or natural disaster duty.

If accepted for a State Military Department, unclassified position, I hereby request approval to become a member of the Louisiana State Guard.

Todd Gallagher (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

To confirm, with the exception of a historical reference page for Mississippi, there are no state-level .gov or .state.xx.us websites that contain 2009 information for Louisiana, Mississippi or Massachusetts. South Carolina's http://sg.sc.gov/, New York's http://dmna.ny.gov/nyg/, California's http://www.calguard.ca.gov/casmr/Pages/default.aspx are good examples of current state-level government managed websites that show active forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22015va (talk • contribs) 02:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Kansas

Kansas entry of the table's citation links to garbage restrictions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.176.59 (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Uniform table

I modified the two states that I have firsthand knowledge of (New York and Alabama), and cited appropriate sources. I also changed the table slightly, to indicate that it shows Utility uniforms. Both NY and AL do authorize a class A uniform, based off of the Army's. I will attempt to research some of the other states as I make the time. SSaint04 (talk) 06:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization

I've reverted Todd Gallagher's reversion of changes in capitalization. Hoping not to start a reversion war, so I thought I'd explain the logic here. I changed initial capitalization to lower case where the word in question was not used a proper noun. For example, "Many states organize their state defense force" would be lower case since it does not refer to a specific state defense force, i.e. not a proper noun. However, "Alabama State Defense Force" would remain capitalized because it is a proper noun. 24.88.252.140 (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your edits. They pretty well follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

North Carolina

North Carolina has a "State Defense Militia" which was reactivated by then Governor Martin in 1988. It received some publicity and did some good work during natural disasters. However, it became something of a bad joke within the state when it was learned that it was extremely top heavy with high ranking "officers" and had almost no enlisted personnel. The straw that apparently broke the camel's back was an incident where one of these "officers" who was at Fort Bragg chewed out a regular military member of lower rank for some supposed infraction, which he had no right to do. Not long after the group was de-activated. As I recall, the membership never got much above 500 yet it was commanded by a "general". The "troops" were not authorized to carry weapons, although I understand that some did from time to time, did not receive much in the way of training and may have spent much of their time engaging in "chest thumping". As a former US military member, I fail to understand the need for such an organization, at least one organized as a military unit, when it apparently will never go into combat. There are plenty of other agencies these folks can join which will serve their community in a better fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.20.49.108 (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

State Defense Force → State defense force – The title is not a proper noun and thus should not have the second and third words capitalized. It is just like the difference between an "army" and the "Army" i.e. a "state defense force" when talking about them generally and the "State Defense Force" when referring to a specific one. Green Giant (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support For same reasons as Green Giant. "The Massachusetts State Defense Force has a rich history" vs. "The state defense force has a rich history"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocalafla (talk • contribs)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Transfers between different states' defense forces?

I'm curious as to the possibility/practicability of a member of one state's defense force transferring to another state's defense force, and if any form of reciprocity exists between states. For example, if a person who was already an officer in the New York Guard moved to Massachusetts, would the Massachusetts SDF be likely (or obliged) to accept them as a member of the Mass. SDF? If so, would Mass. be obliged to accept them at their NY rank? My searching so far has turned up no information about this. I think it would be an important piece of information to include. Can anyone enlighten us? Occam's Shaver (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

No state is obliged, since every state has its own requirements. However, some states may have it as policy to take other SDF soldiers. For example, if you were a major in the New York Guard, and you were moving to Georgia, Georgia may have it as a policy to allow you to enter as a major. Technically, prior service personnel from the Armed Forces are not required to be given their prior rank either. Most states will recognize it if you have been out for a short period and if a position is available for that rank. Todd Gallagher (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section needs to be refactored

Criticism sections generally become troll magnets over time by encouraging the addition of every single negative item that can be cited, giving undue weight. It is much better to integrate negative and positive material in a more organic way. For SDFs I suggest just presenting the overall history with subsections on the different phases. Examples could be Early years/Home Guards, World Wars, post WWII when most were disbanded, jump to the 1980s when many were restarted, then the growth in the 1990s, and post-911. All along that mention relevant challenges and controversies. Individual incidents are no more appropriate here than listing individual criminal acts committed by members of any type of organization unless those acts are notable in context, such as leading to some action that affected the SDF or was high-profile enough to impact the perception of the SDF (but that is hard to show one way or another and should be done with caution). COI - I'm a member of an SDF, but not one mentioned in the criticism section. --mav (reviews needed) 03:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a great point. As the person who contributed the content in the Criticism section, I've - since no other edits have been made since - deleted the section and blended the content into "History" as you suggested, as well as eliminating the isolated incidents from Texas and Alabama. BlueSalix (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Much better, thanks. The 'Modern era' subsection still seems negative to me given my own experience of increasing standards and use by the NG and other state agencies of my SDF. But I'm hard pressed to find sources for that outside of our own publications. News sources especially will tend to report negative incidents over positive trends. Please just keep these things in mind as you continue to edit and find sources. One place to find positive mentions of SDFs would be related to the use of the Texas State Guard and Georgia State Defense Force in Hurricane Katrina response and the work that the New York Guard did during Superstorm Sandy. However, finding reliable sources may be hard b/c the news media very often assume SDF troops are NG troops and report accordingly. --mav (reviews needed) 04:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, there's not much we can do in the absence of RS. C'est la vie. BlueSalix (talk) 09:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Current/Inactive State defense forces

A number of inactive or former state defense forces have made their way onto the "active state defense forces" table, but not all of them. I would like to see the roughly twenty wikipedia pages for inactive or disbanded state defense forces featured more prominently on the page, rather than merely at the template at the bottom, but is the "active state defense forces" section the best place to do it given that the number of active and inactive is roughly the same? So far only Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Utah have been added. Are there any opinions about whether we should put all the inactive pages in this table, or create a new section, or re-title the section? Et0048 (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The Alabama SDF is no longer active. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

images

@Et0048: with this revert, you wrote; No rationale was provided for this action. This is a perfect spot for visual aids. Is that supposed to be a joke? The page looks awful. You have sections of prose that are supposedly leading into tables, but before that, there are these massive gaps, where the right side of the page is taken up by a huge column of jumbo-sized pictures, and the other 2/3rds of the area is blank. And this occurs not once, but twice. I see a majority of your editing is involved in this page and related subject articles, so I catch, maybe a whiff of WP:OWNership here, but seriously... take a look at the before and after effect before reverting. And maybe take a look at MOS:IMAGES while you're at it. Moving those images to a gallery is much more appropriate, and they are still very much accessible as "visual aids". This page looks ridiculous as it is now. - theWOLFchild 19:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: First of all, I will kindly remind you that Wikipedia has a policy of civility when communicating with other users. Phrases such as "Is that supposed to be a joke?" do not assume good faith, and as your talk page history demonstrates, you have been asked by other editors editors to refrain from such unprofessional conduct. I will add my request to their own that you please be polite and civil. In the interest of civility, I would like to address your statements one-by-one.
  • As for the improper suggestion that that "ownership" is somehow a factor in my editing, I believe you are misunderstanding the definition of "ownership." What ownership does NOT mean is "working primarily on articles which are in the same general category as one another." That seems to be what you are suggesting. Many editors will work on articles in the same category or interest area. This may be due to the subject being a passion of theirs, or it may be a topic they are well-informed on, or it may simply be that they have good sources that can be used in multiple articles. For example, a lawyer, with a law library at her disposal, may find her understanding and resources make her more suited to writing and editing law-related articles. This would not somehow translate to "ownership" of any one of them, simply because all edits are in the same category of articles.
  • You referenced MOS:IMAGES. I am unclear as to what part of that article you are referencing, since the only images it advises against using are those that sandwich text between images on the left and the right, which is not the case in this article.
  • You also reference the images in this article, describing them as "jumbo-sized." However, if you read the MOS:IMAGES page, you will discover that sizing policy states that the default size for images is 220px, and that "the...image should usually be no more than 500 pixels tall and no more than 400 pixels wide, for comfortable display on the smallest devices 'in common use'" A size of 240px, which is used in the article, cannot, according to Wikipedia's own policy, be described as "jumbo-sized." This may SEEM an uncommon size if, according to the page, you are using a device not "in common use."
  • You claim that "you have sections of prose that are supposedly leading into tables, but before that, there are these massive gaps, where the right side of the page is taken up by a huge column of jumbo-sized pictures, and the other 2/3rds of the area is blank." I'm genuinely a bit confused as to what you're trying to say here. If you view this page on a standard computer, the images are neatly aligned to the right of the column, breaking up the monotony of a huge bank of text organized in the table. I'm guessing possibly you viewed this page on a device not "in common use" that scrambled your view of the page to make it fit on the screen.
  • Removing large amounts of content from articles is traditionally done from consensus. It is one things that keeps Wikipedia civil. If you want to remove large amounts of material, as you have done here, you should first attempt to gain a consensus to do so, rather than acting unilaterally.

Again, I would remind you to remain civil in your communications. Respectfully, Et0048 (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, the page hasn't changed, so while you put all this effort in writing out this huuuge post, you've made no effort to improve this article. While I have no interest in reading your entire giant-wall-of-text, at a glance, I did notice a remark about my talk page (which is odd, because it's blank) and something about me "removing large amounts of content" which again is odd, because I didn't "remove" a single thing. I've viewed this page on 3 different screens, 10", 17" and 42", there is a huge, ridiculous looking blank hole next to both columns of images on 2, and its there next to the 1st column on all 3. I tried to improve that, what have you done?. So, instead of preaching about manners, look to your own actions. And in the meantime, whether you use my gallery edit or not, how do you propose to fix this problem? - theWOLFchild 22:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Erroneous Information?

I believe there are a few critical errors in this page. I served in Idaho National Guard 7 years from '96-'03, before and after 9-11, so things may have changed, but this is from my own experience.

  • National Guard is shorthand for the formal title Army National Guard. (not a big deal, just saying)
  • The formal title ANG is to communicate they are part of the formal Army, are normally directed by state governors, but are sometimes called up to serve alongside Active Duty Army units. There are no shortcuts.
  • ANG soldiers are required to do standard Army Basic Training (10 weeks). BT and AIT are always a mix of Active, Reserve, and ANG soldiers.
  • ANG units meets 2-3 days every month, and 15 days a year for training. Sometimes the annual 15 days training are performed at Army Bases alongside Active Duty units. Once of my units went to Ft. Collins, Colorado, and the entire Idaho NG (with some units from Montana NG and Utah NG) trained for a month at Ft. Irwin in the Mojave Desert, which also hosts regualar Army trainings.
  • I've never heard of any soldier, enlisted or officer who was initially trained separately from Active Duty soldiers. A soldier cannot serve in his job without passing the full course of the MOS's AIT.
  • The cost of training Guard soldiers separately would be logically redundant, since the Army has well-established training facilities around the US.
  • I personally doubt reports of ANG soldiers only doing 4 days of initial training. While I was enlisted I looked into Officer Training. This article seems to claim Officers were/are not training like Active Duty officers; they are and it is intense. Full basic training is logically required to instill military bearings, etc. Guard soldiers use most of the same equipment as regular Army (artillery, engineers, military intelligence, etc - I served in all three of these). Logically the government isn't going to give expensive and dangerous artillery cannons, engineer explosives, Army helicopters, etc to everyday Joe's with 4 days training.
  • It claims Idaho does not have an air unit. We have Air National Guard units in Boise (https://imd.idaho.gov/idaho-air-national-guard/)
  • It claims Montana has no force (https://state.nationalguard.com/montana)

These are just some of the errors I saw. I think this page should be updated with current information. Some of what I read relates to older realities (pre-1990's) of bad ANG units that didn't train much and drank beers all the time. I'll try to do some updates myself, but I've got brain cancer and chemo so I don't have much energy.

Thanks!

Familyhandyman (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but the acronym for Army National Guard is ARNG. ANG is the Air National Guard. CsikosLo (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

NOPE. Acronym ARNG is Army Reserves and National Guard as started to be "Inclusive" of a Total Army Concept (Active Duty, Reserves, National Guard(s)). how do I know? I went from Active Duty U.S. Army Officer to Reserves and became ARNG. Prior to the U.S. Army Air Corps becoming the U.S. Air Force, ANG was the U.S. States and U.S. Territories Acronym for U.S. States Army National Guards with their Commander In Chief being the Governor of that U.S. State, and his Chief of Staff being the U.S. State's Adjutant General of the U.S. State's Department of Defense (State's DOD) of that U.S. State's Emergency Management (most U.S. States require these Employees to be a member of their U.S. State's National Guards as Subject to UCMJ, State's Laws and Regulations, City Laws, Local Laws, "Civil" Laws. I have lots of Links to U.S. States Job Sites that require Membership with U.S. States National Guards or as U.S. Military Reservists), Army National Guard(s), Air National Guards, sometimes U.S. Navy Guards and Reserves including the U.S. Navy's Merchant Marines as U.S. Naval Reservists.

My younger Sister a U.S.A.F. Lieutenant Colonel on Secretary of Defense Gates Personal Staff, at the Pentagon U.S. Air Force National Guards Official Acronym was AFNG. This State's Air National Guard Personnel Management Non Commissioned Officer in Charge says the same AFNG, so does a very long time friend an E-8 of this U.S. State's Air Force National Guard says AFNG.

Whomever wrote this nonsense article does not know much, was never part of U.S. Military or U.S. States Department of Defense, and is coming up with some kind of made up nonsense as "State Defense Force", instead of using Proper U.S. State's Name of that U.S. State's Name then Department of Defense. Nakamuradavid (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Familyhandyman: I think there's been some confusion. You're talking about the National Guard of the United States. This article is about the state defense forces, which are completely separate from the National Guard. The discrepancies you're referencing in your post are all due to the fact that the organizations listed on this page are completely separate from the National Guard. Please let me know if there's anything specific I can clarify. Et0048 (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

From its founding until the early 1900s

What is this referring to? the Militia, the second amendment or the US, or the US army?Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does NOT pertain to the Active U.S. Military nor Reserves.

The Second Amendment pertains to The State's Militia (National Guard(s)) and separated by a Comma (,) (back then used like a Period (.)) Individual Rights.

History

The Democracy Experiment of the 1781 Articles of Confederation Failed, and nearly Caused the Failure of the American Revolution.

  • Did not allow nor authorize "a Standing Army (and Navy)"
  • Did not allow nor authorize Taxes to Fund a Standing Army and Navy to fight the British, stop Invasion nor stop "Domestic Violence".
  • Did not allow nor authorize a Centralized Government nor the means to Fund that Centralized Government.
  • Each of the 13 American Colonies Governors decided how much money to give to the American Founding Fathers, how many Colony's Militia to send to join the First Continental Army, most Governors kept the money to make themselves rich, and only send a few untrained not equipped Militia as to how Valley Forge happened, no money. no food, no munitions.

Before the start of the American Revolution, the British King's Appointed Governors to cut costs of the Large British Military Garrisons so that the Governors could keep more money to make themselves richer created "Well Regulated" by British Military Officers, their Colony's Own American Colonists Militia's (National Guards). Before the American Revolution British Lord Governor General Cornwallis and British Lord Governor General Clinton seized the American Colonists Militia's Armories, and declared the American Colonies Militia's Traitors.

Unarmed the American Colonies Militias fled with the American Founding Fathers to Philadelphia where the Largest Contingent of Armed INDIVIDUAL American Colonists were at. Right behind the Unarmed American Colonists Militia Members and American Founding Fathers were the American Colonists Democrats that believed in the Rule of the British King, as Mercenaries, Bounty Hunters, British Loyalists, the British Mercenaries of Hessians and Prussians, then the British Military. There was no American Colonists First Continental Army.

Church bells at the American Colonies rang, Riders went all over shouting "The British Are Coming". Individuals that hid firearms and swords (a sword was enough to get you hanged), met in front of the churches as a mob (no Military Training). From behind Trees, Fences, Rock Walls, Buildings, irrigation ditches, roof tops, barns, the INDIVIDUAL Armed American Colonists fired the first shots at Lexington and Concord of the American Revolution, stopping the American Colonies Democrat British Loyalists, the Prussian and Hessian Mercenaries, British Military. These INDIVIDUAL Armed American Colonists continued to fight the British Loyalists, Mercenaries, British Military until the American Founding Fathers stopped arguing about Money (Funding) and created the American Colonies First Continental Army. THIS IS WHY THE SECOND AMENDMENT EVEN HAS "INDIVIDUAL" RIGHTS TO BEAR ARMS AS SEPARATE FROM "MILITIAS" (previously defeated as "Well Regulated" by the British Military).

The U.S. Constitution pertains to the U.S. Army (U.S. Navy, U.S. Defense) and also stopped the Failed Democracy of the Failed 1781 Articles of Confederation as

REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against Domestic Violence."

The U.S. Constitution's U.S. Defense only had Two Missions, Stop Invasion, and Stop Domestic Violence (like the Domestic Violence of the 1786 to 1787 Democracy Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion after the American Revolution. AND NOT the Democrats Demands to the Use of U.S. Military Force to Force Democracy on other Sovereign Nations, like Democrats of the Articles of Confederation aka Confederate States of America to Force Democracy and Reinstate the Failed Democracy and the Failed Articles of Confederation, attacked the Union of States of the United States of the Republic of America aka "The Union" aka the U.S. aka America of the U.S. Constitution starting the American Civil War.

Need any more explanations. Go Research here, and if you want to KNOW the names of the Democrats as British Loyalists the lists are here. The British still have the British King's Contracts that established the British PRISON COLONIES OF AMERICA aka 13 American Colonies, same as later with the British Prison Colonies at New Zealand, Tasmania, Australia. Historically accurate depiction is here, Season 1 Episode 7 "A Prayer for Mad Sweeney", the Story of Essie sentenced to Transportation to the British Penal Colonies of America aka 13 American Colonies. Nakamuradavid (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Map error

South Carolina is marked on the map as only having an Army State Guard, but also has a Naval Militia. The map should be updated by someone who knows how. CsikosLo (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, the map shows that Arizona has an “active” State militia while the table shows it as “Not Established” (not even “Inactive”). I’m sure that the table is correct since I have never heard of an “Arizona State Militia” even though I’ve lived in in Arizona since 1962. Bayowolf (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Virginia Defense Force

I don't think the Virginia Defense Force is inactive. Their website is maintained and describes activities as late as March 2019. They also have more recent news items on the Virginia National Guard website.

Brutchersp (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:State_defense_force/Archive_1&oldid=1076536095"