Selective Service

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

blindhari

Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
554
I am still looking on this one but here is the problem I forsee:

1 Females were originally defered from Selective Service Registration due to noncombatant status
2 They are no longer noncombatant, thanks to Panetta
3 Males are required to register for Selective Service on a solely gender based orientation
4 Gender base laws are by and large discriminatory/illeagal (see #3)
5 Someone else is going to think of this and file suit
6 When the dust settles, or a new ruling is made females will probably be found to be subject to Selective Service (see #1)
7 any who don't stand to lose 2nd amendment rights just as I would have if I had not registered in 1964

blindhari
 
blindhari I am still looking on this one but here is the problem I forsee:

1 Females were originally defered from Selective Service Registration due to noncombatant status
2 They are no longer noncombatant, thanks to Panetta
3 Males are required to register for Selective Service on a solely gender based orientation
4 Gender base laws are by and large discriminatory/illeagal (see #3)
5 Someone else is going to think of this and file suit
6 When the dust settles, or a new ruling is made females will probably be found to be subject to Selective Service (see #1)
7 any who don't stand to lose 2nd amendment rights just as I would have if I had not registered in 1964
Click to expand...
You need to do a bit more research on gender based discrimination and the Selective Service. Who do you think will file a lawsuit? Women can easily be added to the draft eligible if Congress merely amends the current law.

I'm a natural born male US citizen in my fifties who never even attempted to register for the Selective Service and am not prohibited from owning or possessing firearms nor have I violated any Federal law. Guess how.;)
 
dogtown tom said:
You need to do a bit more research on gender based discrimination and the Selective Service. Who do you think will file a lawsuit? Women can easily be added to the draft eligible if Congress merely amends the current law.

I'm a natural born male US citizen in my fifties who never even attempted to register for the Selective Service and am not prohibited from owning or possessing firearms nor have I violated any Federal law. Guess how.;)
Click to expand...
LOL!! How long did you serve?
 
blindhari said:
I am still looking on this one but here is the problem I forsee:

1 Females were originally defered from Selective Service Registration due to noncombatant status
2 They are no longer noncombatant, thanks to Panetta
3 Males are required to register for Selective Service on a solely gender based orientation
4 Gender base laws are by and large discriminatory/illeagal (see #3)
5 Someone else is going to think of this and file suit
6 When the dust settles, or a new ruling is made females will probably be found to be subject to Selective Service (see #1)
7 any who don't stand to lose 2nd amendment rights just as I would have if I had not registered in 1964

blindhari
Click to expand...

Almost everything you wrote is completly wrong. Please check your facts.
 
C'mon.....ya'll need to try harder.

Coop45 LOL!! How long did you serve?
Click to expand...
Serve what?
I didn't violate any law. I didn't even bother to register, nor could I if I had tried.

Tinpig You were born "Tomasina" but since the operation you go by "Tom."
Click to expand...
Reread my post...."I'm a natural born male US citizen...". Gender has nothing to do with it.


If you know your Selective Service stuff you'll know why those who are 53, 54 or 55 years old violated no law by failing or refusing to register for Selective Service.
 
It's not the complicated. Ford ended the mandatory registration in 1975, Carter reinstated it retroactively to all men born in 1960 or later. That left a gap of just under 3 years where certain men were exempt from registration. Basically, if you turned 18 between 75 and end of 77, your were off the hook.

That said, I'm not sure why anyone is fretting over this. The discussion of whether women's increased roles in combat would result in the Selective Service law being changed has been going on for years. The possible case alluded to in point #4 was decided over 30 years ago.

Many have already talked about it:
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/30/170691565/adding-women-to-selective-service-is-up-to-congress
http://www.whiteoliphaunt.com/duckofminerva/2013/01/14670.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...e_to_register_with_the_selective_service.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...in-combat-roles-raises-questions-about-draft/

If the law changes, women 18-26 will probably have to register. So what?

In addition, no one has been prosecuted for not registering for over 25 years.

I'm not quite clear where this whole, "failure to register" means no 2A rights thing is coming from anyway.
 
As long as we are able to utilize a volunteer military, it doesn't matter. As soon as we get into a real war with a Unified Arab state, Russia, China, or India, etc, we may have a problem. Whenever our military has to double in size (like it did in the World Wars), the draft will most certainly be re-instated.
 
Back in the day, if you were prosecuted for refusing to register, it was probably a federal felony, and you would lose certain rights, including access to firearms.
 
An 18 year old male in 1964 was faced with various choices;

1 Register for draft
2 Alternate service/Peace Corps
3 Leaving the country
4 Trial and incarceration by federal law

If there were other choices at the time I am not aware of what they were. I watched senior males graduate from high school and leave within the next year for Canada. I had one friend tried and jailed. The pressure applied at the time was gender based, it still is. Try looking up Federal Selective Service Act 2012. As a gender based law it is inherently discriminatory. Sooner or later some one is going to be disatisfied with the staus quo of registration and call it sexist. Panetta and company(Obama) have not provided an eaqul playing field for those who can be compelled to serve on an involuntary basis.
Do not misunderstand me, I chose to serve and served with pride and was given an honorable discharge as Sgt. United States Army.

Sgt. U.S.Army
blindhari..... as close as I can get to a team name earned over 45 years ago
 
my boys wanted to join the USMC when they were 17 years old , I let them stew a bit , had them retest (ASVAB) to get there scores up for a better/larger pick of jobs, then I sign on the dotted line , and they were sworn in when they were 17 years old, they had already started there poolee USMC meets. when they turned 18 a few months later they got there Selective Service cards in the mail :what: I think they could have save the postage:rolleyes:
 
Aside from one oblique mention of possible loss of 2nd A. rights (which would attend any conviction for violating a significant US federal law), this appears to be entirely a discussion of US military service and the legal policies surrounding it.

That's not directly related to guns, shooting, self-defense, RKBA, hunting, or any of the closely-related topics considered for discussion here at THR.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top