Minneapolis PD Suspect Dies On Video While Handcuffed. FBI Investigating.

[Zincwarrior]

Walk me through that. Both how the military is being used against protesters and how that leads to the military being used against gun owners by the next.

What stops it? We've seen moves to confiscate in the past. This is just using the military to enforce common sense regulation against armed criminals and terrorists.
"If the governors won't do it, he will..."

Anything this President will do, the next President will do.

Edit: I don't see our sheriffs and police here anxious to escalate.

[UniSol]

Arrest those committing crimes. Marching is not a crime. Blocking a street is a ticket. If you apply a boot you switch from being public servants to being armed occupation forces.

Austin is handling it well. A little smoke to keep them off the interstate but not creating confrontations. Yesterday we had a few break-ins, but nothing major.

Also, as a Texan, historically we're not fans of Union Bluebacks loose in the countryside ...

No offense, but this is a pretty cavalier attitude-are you suggesting that Austin is representative of how events are occurring in other cities? I don't understand what you're trying to say.

[Borderland]

We generally refer to that as the Posse Comitatus Act... Originally passed because the states that participated in the confederacy really did not enjoy being policed by the military after their failed attempt to break up the U.S.

During the Detroit riots the 82nd airborne and the 101st airborne were used. I guess the president felt they should be used under the Insurrection Act of 1807. They're probably pouring over that right now in the WH.

Personally, I think it's a very bad idea. But nobody from the WH has called me yet to discuss. I hope they don't do anything stupid.

[ranger]

The Posse Comitatus Act does not prohibit POTUS from using the US military to quell insurrection/disorder when the states are either unwilling or unable, however, which definitely includes a few states at this point. The use of the US military in such a manner has happened a few times since Posse Comitatus was enacted, including several times in our living memory. So, it's not only legal but well precedented.

In addition, Posse Comitatus doesn't apply to the US Navy and US Marine Corps, which are only bound by regulations. So, even if anyone wanted to try and get an injunction based on Posse Comitatus, it'd be 100% inapplicable if POTUS ordered the deployment of US Marines. The most applicable I can think of other than standard MPs are the Marine Security Force Regiment components, like Marine Barracks 8th & I or FAST. They'd be a shoe in for this work.

Technically, the Navy and Marines are not restrained by Posse Comitatus but they are restrained by other regulations, etc.

"Navy and Marines. The Posse Comitatus Act proscribes use of the Army or the Air Force to execute the law. It says nothing about the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Coast Guard, or the National Guard. The courts have generally held that the Posse Comitatus Act by itself does not apply to the Navy or the Marine Corps. They maintain, however, that those forces are covered by similarly confining administrative and legislative supplements, which appear in the Department of Defense (DoD) Directive."

[Zincwarrior]

No offense, but this is a pretty cavalier attitude-are you suggesting that Austin is representative of how events are occurring in other cities? I don't understand what you're trying to say.

I am saying Austin is one example of appropriate response.

[JDD]

The Posse Comitatus Act does not prohibit POTUS from using the US military to quell insurrection/disorder when the states are either unwilling or unable, however, which definitely includes a few states at this point. The use of the US military in such a manner has happened a few times since Posse Comitatus was enacted, including several times in our living memory. So, it's not only legal but well precedented.

In addition, Posse Comitatus doesn't apply to the US Navy and US Marine Corps, which are only bound by regulations. So, even if anyone wanted to try and get an injunction based on Posse Comitatus, it'd be 100% inapplicable if POTUS ordered the deployment of US Marines. The most applicable I can think of other than standard MPs are the Marine Security Force Regiment components, like Marine Barracks 8th & I or FAST. They'd be a shoe in for this work.

Oh I am aware of the nuances. It was more the quick pithy reply I was going for.

I would be interested in a lawyerly explanation of the current situation, because it looks like 10 USC 251 authorizes the use of troops when state level governments request (and based on the readout of his call with governors today, it looks like those requests might be slow in coming) or 252 in order to enforce federal laws that states are unwilling or unable to enforce (without the need for State level requests or approvals - the only example that comes to mind is enforcing the desegregation laws that were distinctly un-supported by local government). I would be interested to know if there are federal statutes that could be used to justify a domestic troop deployment against the desire of state level governments.

I suppose it we wait a short while, we will get a full set of legal interpretations from any number of different viewpoints and will be able to choose whichever one best suits our own personal views, but I think the impending cluster of legal battles is going to be a hell of a lot more complicated than dEmS sUe BeCaUse OrAnGe MaN bAd. I could see states with Republican governors who have publicly pushed back at the President recently being a key battleground.

[TGS]

Technically, the Navy and Marines are not restrained by Posse Comitatus but they are restrained by other regulations, etc.

You quoted me writing that.

If it needs any clarifications, regulations do not prohibit POTUS. He is the chief authority that proscribes the regulations.

What stops it? We've seen moves to confiscate in the past. This is just using the military to enforce common sense regulation against armed criminals and terrorists.
"If the governors won't do it, he will..."

Anything this President will do, the next President will do.

Edit: I don't see our sheriffs and police here anxious to escalate.

That, unlike riot control, would be expressly prohibited by the Posse Comitatus Act. The Act prohibits the military from being used to enforce criminal law outside the scope of public disorder.

During the Detroit riots the 82nd airborne and the 101st airborne were used. I guess the president felt they should be used under the Insurrection Act of 1807. They're probably pouring over that right now in the WH.

Personally, I think it's a very bad idea. But nobody from the WH has called me yet to discuss. I hope they don't do anything stupid.

Borderland,

2020 is not the 1960s. Since then lots of law has changed.

Tennessee v Garner would prevent the NG or active military from shooting rioters with lethal force simply for failing to disperse.

[RJ]

[TGS]

Oh I am aware of the nuances. It was more the quick pithy reply I was going for.

I would be interested in a lawyerly explanation of the current situation, because it looks like 10 USC 251 authorizes the use of troops when state level governments request (and based on the readout of his call with governors today, it looks like those requests might be slow in coming) or 252 in order to enforce federal laws that states are unwilling or unable to enforce (without the need for State level requests or approvals - the only example that comes to mind is enforcing the desegregation laws that were distinctly un-supported by local government). I would be interested to know if there are federal statutes that could be used to justify a domestic troop deployment against the desire of state level governments.

I suppose it we wait a short while, we will get a full set of legal interpretations from any number of different viewpoints and will be able to choose whichever one best suits our own personal views, but I think the impending cluster of legal battles is going to be a hell of a lot more complicated than dEmS sUe BeCaUse OrAnGe MaN bAd. I could see states with Republican governors who have publicly pushed back at the President recently being a key battleground.

I think there's lots of pitfalls with the deployment right now as you note, but I'm 100% in agreement with 5pins general notion that the injunction would come from "oRangE mAn BAd!!1!" more than any other voice of reason. The injunctions the left have sought thus far during Trump's term have been pretty evident of that, regardless of whether or not you agree with his administration's policies that were being challenged.

[BehindBlueI's]

What stops it? We've seen moves to confiscate in the past. This is just using the military to enforce common sense regulation against armed criminals and terrorists.
"If the governors won't do it, he will..."

Anything this President will do, the next President will do.

Edit: I don't see our sheriffs and police here anxious to escalate.

Other than a host of laws, the fact the military is made up of citizens as well and I doubt some sort of house-to-house gun confiscation is going to latch on among active duty troops in the same way defending infrastructure and citizens against violence is, the fact that a riot =/= owning a gun and that "using the military against protesters" isn't what's happening? Other than that, nothing I suppose.

So, again, walk me how you get from A to B other than "they'll declare us all rioters" or some similar nonsense.