This is a good idea. I hope they introduce something like this in Texas.
That’s a great thought especially for us old geezers.
They should go further than this and fund voluntary training subsidized by the state. States need their own forces to disuade the coming violence from federal agencies. The DHS didn’t buy 1.6 billion hollow points for nuthin’.
I think this can be improved somewhat. For example, the states have a direct relationship with the federal government in which the two have clearly defined “turf”; but counties have a direct relationship *similar* to that, but with their state, not the federal government.
In common law, the county Sheriff is the de facto head of the militia in his county, and as such, has the *equivalent* of county rights to his state. The state governor cannot order or compel his militia to conduct a state activity, for example, without his permission.
In past, the US Supreme Court has found that congress is superior to state legislature, and federal judges are superior to state judges, but it has *never* found that the president is superior to state governors. Thus when they are in contention, the only way the POTUS can enforce his will is with the US Army. (Last seen in the forced integration of Little Rock high school by the 101st Airborne Division against the Arkansas National Guard, under the direction of Orval Faubus, Bill Clinton’s mentor.)
And there is definitely an absence of federal law about federal authority over county governments and Sheriffs.
This is why the 10th Amendment movement has as one element the “Sheriffs first” resolution:
“A ‘Sheriffs First’ bill would make it a state crime for any federal agent to make an arrest, search, or seizure within the state without first getting the advanced, written permission of the elected county sheriff of the county in which the event is to take place.”
So what does this mean about declaring “All adult persons of good character are members of the militia”?
Simply put, instead of organizing them as a state militia, which can be done, the state constitutional amendment would be extra powerful if it did so “under the auspices of the county Sheriffs, as head of their county militias.”
That is, the state would declare adults to be militia members “of their respective counties of residence”. This would add TWO legal layers the feds would have to violate to confiscate their guns, which could only effectively be done if the feds confiscated the guns of all LEOs, and the National Guard and Reserves in the entire state.
The “able bodied” already are and always have been.
As there is a body in law known as the common law, there is also a body in law known as the militia laws; there being basic practices and principles of each over the millenia.
If you are able bodied, your state already has the power to order you to comply and report to The Muster.
It is because of that, that *most* of the wording of the Second Amendment surrounds in regard to being “well regulated” -— answering concerns of both federalists and states’ rights proponents question: “When mustered, what shall be the lawful use of the body of armed men?”
They must be answerable to civilian authority and well trained to Arms.
There is no great mystery here, except for all who fail to go back and read the old books about the history of the militia.
In a nutshell, if you can complete a basic obstacle course, and manage to maintain yourself in the field for two months (most able bodied can, to their surprise, though without the comforts of home), and you are proficient in the use of ‘military grade weapons,’ and you adhere to the military and civil authority of your militia’s chain of command ... then you *are* in your state’s militia.
It is not necessarily an all volunteer outfit.
I like the way he thinks!