There is current legislation in Montana for a State Defense Force, i.e. Home Guard.

Here is the link to the legislation: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/BillHtml/HB0479.htm

Difference between a State Defense Force/Home Guard/Militia and the National Guard is that the first is only commanded by the State while the latter is commanded by the Federal Government. The National Guard of each State can be mobilized by the President (Fed Gov) without the State's approval. Thus each state under the current Constitution is allowed to maintain it's own State Defense Forces.

Some states maintain State Defense Forces but the majority of them keep them unarmed. Alaska, Texas and now Montana (if this passes) will have an armed State Militia.

This once again is another State telling the Fed to stop encroaching on their rights.

They can leave if they'd like.

Why is a state militia necessary? What, the National Guard isn't enough? And who really wants to go near Montana?

Originally Posted by The Other Guy

They can leave if they'd like.

Why is a state militia necessary? What, the National Guard isn't enough? And who really wants to go near Montana?

With the over reliance on the Guard and Reserve, State Guard may not be a bad idea for States of emergency etc. Depending on how it's set up.

Who knows Alberta may be plotting an Invasion as we speak.

Originally Posted by 03USMC

With the over reliance on the Guard and Reserve, State Guard may not be a bad idea for States of emergency etc. Depending on how it's set up.

Who knows Alberta may be plotting an Invasion as we speak.

The two reasons are because of the federal control of the National Guard.... which in turn does not allow a state to use it's own forces for it's needs.

Montana is doing that for that very reason. Their National Guard forces were deployed when they needed some support during their winter storms. So they're creating a Home Guard.

It's not a bad idea at all. We had the same problem with the flooding last spring.

Originally Posted by 5.56X45mm

This once again is another State telling the Fed to stop encroaching on their rights.

Another auxillary force isn't so bad. I can't really see why they aren't put with state troopers or soemthing like that. Why create a whole new branch when you have other options. What if there is a calamity and they all work along eachtother instead of together?

But how is the federal government enchroacing their right? What right are we talking about? The fact that they allow for such a thing is just proof of the opposite, isn't it?

Sounds like a giant waste of taxpayer money, and who are they going to get to serve in it? Wolves? Deer? Montana has less than a Million people total.

But as long as they don't use Federal Funds to pay for it I really don't care either way.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

But as long as they don't use Federal FUnds to pay for it I really don't care either way.

Which would only make sense if it was a STATE militia. I don't see this as really a bad thing... The fact that the President can mobilize the NATIONAL Guard doesn't seem like it's really in question... I see this as more of a back up plan for emergencies than it is a state getting ready for possible invasion by the Federal Government. Since there have been nearly 130,000 guard and reservists activated since this war began, the possibility of a disaster occurring and the NG not being able to do anything is rising...

Originally Posted by mmarsh

But as long as they don't use Federal Funds to pay for it I really don't care either way.

I completely agree with this.

As a Montana resident and former civilian employee of The MTNG, a Home Guard is what the state needs, and my understanding is that it comes from state funds and county funds as well.