Upon the Ownership of Fort Sumter

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
4,170
#41
Sirs, this also depends upon the type of orders the individual is serving under. Guardsmen under Title 10 or Title 50 orders are prosecuted under the Federal UCMJ statutes. Those under Title 32 orders can be prosecuted under State UCMJs or Civil law depending upon the offense and pay status at the time of the transgression. Situations vary greatly under those circumstances. However, on federal reservations, be they DoD or other USG orgs, local and state authorities have no jurisdiction.

This isn't to say that the two don't work closely together to resolve any issues but local and state can't make demands and expect them to be automatically obeyed. Fed trumps State...but that is kinda what the ACW was about...
5964

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

USS ALASKA

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
4,170
#42
...and subject to its laws. That was my whole point. I said nothing about transfer of ownership.
Sir, Fort Benning and other Federal reservations match many of their rules and regulations to help cut down on confusion for the many people who cross jurisdictional lines everyday. It was done voluntarily, not as mandated by the surrounding state. They are decidedly NOT '...subject...' to the state's laws but used them as Federal laws to match local ordinances.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,526
Location
Right here.
#43
@major bill is exactly right.

Laws on base are enforced by military personnel, not state or local law enforcement.

The Federal government has the authority to decide they will apply state law for such things as traffic, alcoholic beverage consumption, and the like, but they don't have to if they don't want to do so.

A few bases do have a concurrent jurisdiction negotiated where local police can enter if chasing a traffic violator and write a ticket for violations off base. But that's all negotiated. Military bases in general are not subject to local jurisdiction.
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
387
#46
DC is not part of Maryland or Virginia so they wouldn't be under the laws of those states. That doesn't apply to other areas-

Rules and regulations for Fort Benning, Georgia (a United States military installation)

5-2. Vehicle traffic laws.
a. Reference AR 385-10, AR 190-5 and MCoE Reg 190-5.
b. General. The traffic laws of the State of Georgia and the State of Alabama apply on to respective lands of the Fort Benning military reservation (see Title 18, United States Code, Section 13 and Department of Defense Directive 5525.4). All persons who drive a motor vehicle on Fort Benning are responsible for complying with State Laws. (p.7)

5-14. Alcoholic beverages and beer.
a. General. The sale, possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages and beer on this installation is governed by the provisions of AR 215-1, Chapter 10.
b. Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages. Consumption of alcoholic beverages by military personnel on duty is prohibited except where specifically authorized, in accordance with MCoE Regulation 210-65.
c. Purchase, Possession, Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages. All personnel at Fort Benning must be 21 years of age in order to purchase, possess, and/or consume alcoholic beverages on Fort Benning. This is the law of the states of Georgia and Alabama. Positive proof of age will be determined prior to sales. Bona-fide guests may purchase alcoholic beverages by the drink if they meet the Fort Benning age requirement, but may not purchase in bulk. (p.12)
http://www.benning.army.mil/garrison/content/pdf/MCoE Reg 210-5.pdf

The address of the installation is Fort Benning, GA 31905.
Why?
It's part of Georgia.

DC was part of Maryland and VA. Just like those forts were part of those states. Are you saying that the Constitution doesn't exist?

Like you are showing there, the Fort itself has to make up it's own laws, and in this case do what many do, assimilating state laws where they choose to. In the case of driving laws they CHOOSE to have their regulations follow the state ones. Their choice. Thanks for showing that. What you are talking about here is the Assimilative crimes act. Which at the time was the Crimes act of 1825. Saying if there's no federal law against something on a federal enclave you can charge in federal court under state law if you want.


And this is a PERFECT example. You get a DUI on base, you go to a FEDERAL court for it, because FEDERAL legislation has power, state doesn't. Great example of what a federal enclave is and how states have no power.


Of course having lived on quite a few bases, I can tell you the federal courts may choose to follow state law when it suits them, they don't have to follow all mechanisms of that law. So in Georgia for example, the consent regulations for a DUI are very specific, that they have to be read and advise you you can take an independent test. For a federal DUI in Ft Benning, while they would use the Assimilative Crimes act to convict you in federal court of the laws of the state, they don't have to follow Georgia's consent procedures.

And yes, the post office uses that location. Last I saw there is NO LAW that the post office determines who has legislative control over an area. That's not relevant.


So are you arguing this out of ignorance and hoping you might be correct?

Or are you intentionally trying to rewrite Constitutional law for some reason?
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
387
#48
I am sorry but you are mistaken. Again on most, but not all military insulations, the base is under military law and under the jurisdiction of the military. A few military insulations do have joint jurisdiction, again this must be researched to be sure. Soldiers on military insulations are not subject to State or city laws unless the military has adopted those laws. And even then they are under military jurisdiction and not State jurisdiction. I suggest you read Title 18, United States Code, Section 13 and Department of Defense Directive 5525.4 once again to see if you are correct.

My reading of Title 18, United States Code, Section 13 and Department of Defense Directive 5525.4 is that State traffic laws are adopted by the military posts but the State traffic laws are not enforced by State and the State has no jurisdiction over traffic on the military post. Basically the military says the military law is the same as the State law, but this does not indicate the State law in in effect on the post, it only means the military traffic law is the same as the State law. A soldier speeding on post does not pay a fine to the State nor do they go to a State court or city court to settle the traffic incident.

The issue seems to be that you assume that if a military post uses the wording of a State traffic law this indicates that the military cedes jurisdiction of traffic laws to the State. This is indeed not the case.

To a point. There is the UCMJ, which could be enacted there as well, but it's federal law that the base is under.

So if you got a DUI for example on Fort Benning, you would get charged in Federal court since state laws of course do not have any weight on a Federal Enclave, if your married, your spouse would as well. Since there is no Federal laws for DUI, the base laws in this case use the Assimilative Crimes act, and specifically state at the federal level that driving laws will be the same as State driving laws. Therefore the Federal courts will charge you with the same state law. Then you can also be charged under military law, aka the UCMJ if you are in the military (your spouse wouldn't). Then comes into play further restrictions, jail, reduction in rate, pay, discharge, etc.


Sexual assault on base, it's a FEDERAL crime, punished by a federal court and served in a federal prison.
https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/latest-news/article164950657.html

Sexual assault off base it's a state/county/city issue:
https://www.oanow.com/news/crime_co...cle_e552cbee-c670-11e8-bf01-1fee08d470ef.html
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
387
#49
So in the ACW time frame - "South Carolina was still geographically part of the United States and subject to its laws."
6066

Cheers,
USS ALASKA
That is true as well, as confirmed by Texas V White as well. It was still the US, but in rebellion. Now Lincoln took that and said since they were in rebellion while they still fell under US laws, they were not protected by the Constitution (makes sense, they shouldn't get to vote for example on whether to fund the US military when actively fighting it).
 



Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top