I keep seeing this topic pop up after Florida is resurrecting its state militia. I want to give some background.

Most people don't this, but a second purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to keep the federal government's hands off control of the state militias. State militias were to be a bulwark against federal tyranny, to act against the feds if they had too. Essentially the Founders were comfortable setting up conditions where states had their own military forces, although there was a national army and navy. There is a lot of record of this in Founding Era writings. However, militias proved inadequate in the War of 1812, so the move towards centralization started.

Still, even during the Civil War, units were composed of troops and officers all from within states. But by WWI this system proved inadequate for the massive nationwide mobilization that had to occur, so it was reformed and centralized. People at the time pointed out that this was not supposed to occur, but alas, their voices were not heeded. By WWII and thereafter, a dual system was set up where, national guards were nominally under control of the governor of a state, but they were really just federal Reserve units, federalized at will.

An example of this federalization, is when Ike took control of the state national guard units, federalizing them, to implement desegregation. The governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus, had indicated he would use the state National Guard to PREVENT the implementation of SCOTUS's Brown decision that required integration of the schools. So for the first time since the Civil War, troops didn't have to decide who remain loyal to, their state, or the feds.

Still, the ghosts of the original system remains, which is why Oklahoma is allowing its National Guard troops to avoid the mandatory jab....so long as the troops are not activated and put under federal control.

So, in summary, FL, in bringing back its state guard, disbanded in 1947, is bringing back a Founding Era understanding of state sovereignty.

(p.s.: No court is ever going to rule the current National Guard system unconstitutional)

I keep seeing this topic pop up after Florida is resurrecting its state militia. I want to give some background.

Most people don't this, but a second purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to keep the federal government's hands off control of the state militias. State militias were to be a bulwark against federal tyranny, to act against the feds if they had too. Essentially the Founders were comfortable setting up conditions where states had their own military forces, although there was a national army and navy. There is a lot of record of this in Founding Era writings. However, militias proved inadequate in the War of 1812, so the move towards centralization started.

Still, even during the Civil War, units were composed of troops and officers all from within states. But by WWI this system proved inadequate for the massive nationwide mobilization that had to occur, so it was reformed and centralized. People at the time pointed out that this was not supposed to occur, but alas, their voices were not heeded. By WWII and thereafter, a dual system was set up where, national guards were nominally under control of the governor of a state, but they were really just federal Reserve units, federalized at will.

An example of this federalization, is when Ike took control of the state national guard units, federalizing them, to implement desegregation. The governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus had indicated he would use the state National Guard to PREVENT the implementation of SCOTUS's Brown decision that required integration of the schools. So for the first time since the Civil War, troops didn't have to decide who remain loyal to, their state, or the feds.

Still, the ghosts of the original system remains, which is why Oklahoma is allowing its National Guard troops to avoid the mandatory jab....so long as the troops are not activated and put under federal control.

So, in summary, FL, in bringing back its state guard, disbanded in 1947, is bringing back a Founding Era understanding of state sovereignty.

(p.s.: No court is ever going to rule the current National Guard system unconstitutional)