Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form U.S. Army: Fill & Download for Free

Federal government of the United StatesI'll edit the above. I'm tired of removing redundancies an unnecessary stuff.The outline of the government of the United States is laid out in the Constitution. The government was formed in 1789, making the United States one of the world's first, if not the first, modern national constitutional republic.[1]The United States government is based on the principle of federalism, in which power is shared between the federal government and state governments. The details of American federalism, including what powers the federal government should have and how those powers can be exercised, have been debated ever since the adoption of the Constitution. Some make the case for expansive federal powers while others argue for a more limited role for the central government in relation to individuals, the states or other recognized entities.One of the theoretical pillars of the United States Constitution is the idea of "checks and balances" among the powers and responsibilities of the three branches of American government: the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. For example, while the legislative (Congress) has the power to create law, the executive (President) can veto any legislation—an act which, in turn, can be overridden by Congress.[4] The President nominates judges to the nation's highest judiciary authority (Supreme Court), but those nominees must be approved by Congress. The Supreme Court, in its turn, has the power to invalidate as "unconstitutional" any law passed by the Congress. These and other examples are examined in more detail in the text below.Legislative branchMain article: United States CongressThe United States Congress is the legislative branch of the federal government. It is comprised of the House of Representatives and the Senate.Powers of CongressThe Constitution grants numerous powers to Congress. Enumerated in Article I, Section 8, these include the powers to levy and collect taxes; to coin money and regulate its value; provide for punishment for counterfeiting; establish post offices and roads, issue patents, create federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court, combat piracies and felonies, declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, make rules for the regulation of land and naval forces, provide for, arm and discipline the militia, exercise exclusive legislation in the District of Columbia, and to make laws necessary to properly execute powers.Over the two centuries since the United States was formed, many disputes have arisen over the limits on the powers of the federal government. These disputes have often been the subject of lawsuits that have ultimately been decided by the United States Supreme Court.Makeup of CongressHouse of RepresentativesThe House currently consists of 435 voting members, each of whom represents a congressional district. The number of representatives each state has in the House is based on each state's population as determined in the most recent United States Census. All 435 representatives serve a two-year term. Each state receives a minimum of one representative in the House. In order to be elected as a representative, an individual must be at least 25 years of age, must have been a U.S. citizen for at least seven years, and must live in the state that he or she represents.SenateThe Senate is made up of two senators from each state. There are currently 100 senators (two from each of the 50 states), who each serve six-year terms. Approximately one third of the Senate stands for election every two years.Different powersThe House and Senate each have particular exclusive powers. For example, the Senate must approve (give "advice and consent" to) many important Presidential appointments, including cabinet officers, federal judges (including nominees to the Supreme Court), department secretaries (heads of federal executive branch departments), U.S. military and naval officers, and ambassadors to foreign countries. All legislative bills for raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives. The approval of both chambers is required to pass any legislation, which then may only become law by being signed by the President (or, if the President vetoes the bill, both houses of Congress then re-pass the bill, but by a two-thirds majority of each chamber, in which case the bill becomes law without the President's signature). The powers of Congress are limited to those enumerated in the Constitution; all other powers are reserved to the states and the people. The Constitution also includes the "Necessary and Proper Clause", which grants Congress the power to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." Members of the House and Senate are elected according to the laws of the several states.Impeachment of federal officersCongress has the power to remove the President, federal judges, and other federal officers from office. The House must first vote to "impeach" the official. Then, a trial is held in the Senate to decide whether the official should be removed from office.Congressional proceduresEach chamber has the power to "determine the rules of its proceedings." From this provision were created congressional committees, which do the work of drafting legislation and conducting congressional investigations into national matters.Powers of CongressMain article: Article One of the United States ConstitutionThe United States Capitol is the seat of government for Congress.Congressional oversightMain article: Congressional oversightCongressional oversight is intended to prevent waste and fraud, protect civil liberties and individual rights, ensure executive compliance with the law, gather information for making laws and educating the public, and evaluate executive performance.[6]It applies to cabinet departments, executive agencies, regulatory commissions and the presidency.Congressional membership:Each state is allocated a number of seats based on its representation (or ostensible representation, in the case of D.C.) in the House of Representatives. Each state is allocated two Senators regardless of its population.Executive branchSee also: Article Two of the United States ConstitutionThe executive power in the federal government is vested in the President of the United States,[7] although power is often delegated to the Cabinet members and other officials.[8][9] The President and Vice President are elected as running mates by the Electoral College, for which each state, as well as the District of Columbia, is allocated a number of seats based on its representation (or ostensible representation, in the case of D.C.) in both houses of Congress.[7][10] The President is limited to a maximum of two four-year terms.[11]PresidentMain article: President of the United StatesThe executive branch consists of the President and those to whom the President's powers are delegated. The President is both the head of state and government, as well as the military commander-in-chief and chief diplomat. The President, according to the Constitution, must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed", and "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution". The President presides over the executive branch of the federal government, an organization numbering about 5 million people, including 1 million active-duty military personnel and 600,000 postal service employees.The President may sign legislation passed by Congress into law or may veto it, preventing it from becoming law unless two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to override the veto. The President may unilaterally sign treaties with foreign nations. However, ratification of international treaties requires a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate.The President may not dissolve Congress or call special elections but does have the power to pardon, or release, criminals convicted of offenses against the federal government (except in cases of impeachment), enact executive orders, and (with the consent of the Senate) appoint officials mentioned above.Vice PresidentMain article: Vice President of the United StatesThe Vice President is the second-highest executive official in rank of the government. As first in the U.S. presidential line of succession, the Vice President becomes President upon the death, resignation, or removal of the President, which has happened nine times in U.S. history. Under the Constitution, the Vice President is President of the Senate. By virtue of this role, he or she is the head of the Senate. In that capacity, the Vice President is allowed to vote in the Senate, but only when necessary to break a tie vote.While the Vice President's only constitutionally prescribed functions, aside from presidential succession, relate to his or her role as President of the Senate, the office is now commonly viewed as a member of the executive branch of the federal government.Judicial branchMain article: United States federal courtsSee also: Article Three of the United States ConstitutionThe Judiciary explains and applies the laws. This branch does this by hearing and eventually making decisions on various legal cases.Overview of the federal judiciaryArticle III section I of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court of the United States and authorizes the United States Congress to establish inferior courts as their need shall arise. Section I also establishes a lifetime tenure for all federal judges and states that their compensation may not be diminished during their time in office. Article II section II establishes that all federal judges are to be appointed by the president and confirmed by theUnited States Senate.The Judiciary Act of 1789 subdivided the nation jurisdictionally into judicial districts and created federal courts for each district. The three tiered structure of this act established the basic structure of the national judiciary: the Supreme Court, 13 courts of appeals, 94 district courts, and two courts of special jurisdiction. The U.S. Supreme Court adjudicates "cases and controversies"—matters pertaining to the federal government, disputes between states, and interpretation of the United States Constitution, and, in general, can declare legislation or executive action made at any level of the government as unconstitutional, nullifying the law and creating precedent for future law and decisions. The United States Constitution does not grant the judicial branch the power of judicial review (the power to declare a law Unconstitutional). The power of judicial review was asserted by Chief Justice Marshall in the landmark Supreme Court CaseMarbury v. Madison (1803). There have been instances in the past where such declarations have been ignored by the other two branches.The other courts, such as the bankruptcy courts and the Tax Court, are specialized courts handling only certain kinds of cases ("subject matter jurisdiction"). The Bankruptcy Courts are "under" the district courts, and as such are not considered part of the "Article III" judiciary and also as such their judges do not have lifetime tenure, nor are they Constitutionally exempt from diminution of their remuneration. Also the Tax Court is not an Article III court (but is, instead an "Article I Court").The district courts are the trial courts wherein cases that are considered under the Judicial Code (Title 28, United States Code) consistent with the jurisdictional precepts of "federal question jurisdiction" and "diversity jurisdiction" and "pendent jurisdiction" can be filed and decided. The district courts can also hear cases under "removal jurisdiction", wherein a case brought in State court meets the requirements for diversity jurisdiction, and one party litigant chooses to "remove" the case from state court to federal court.The United States Courts of Appeals are appellate courts that hear appeals of cases decided by the district courts, and some direct appeals from administrative agencies, and some interlocutory appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court hears appeals from the decisions of the courts of appeals or state supreme courts, and in addition has original jurisdiction over a small number of cases.The judicial power extends to cases arising under the Constitution, an Act of Congress; a U.S. treaty; cases affecting ambassadors, ministers and consuls of foreign countries in the U.S.; cases and controversies to which the federal government is a party; controversies between states (or their citizens) and foreign nations (or their citizens or subjects); and bankruptcy cases (collectively "federal-question jurisdiction").The power of the federal courts extends both to civil actions for damages and other redress, and to criminal cases arising under federal law. The interplay of the Supremacy Clause and Article III has resulted in a complex set of relationships between state and federal courts. Federal courts can sometimes hear cases arising under state law pursuant to diversity jurisdiction, state courts can decide certain matters involving federal law, and a handful of federal claims are primarily reserved by federal statute to the state courts (for example, those arising from the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991). Both court systems thus can be said to have exclusive jurisdiction in some areas and concurrent jurisdiction in others.The U.S. Constitution safeguards judicial independence by providing that federal judges shall hold office "during good behavior"; in practice, this usually means they serve until they die, retire, or resign. A judge who commits an offense while in office may be impeached as above. Another Constitutional provision prohibits Congress from reducing the pay of any Article III judge (Congress is able to set a lower salary for all future judges that take office after the reduction, but may not decrease the rate of pay for judges already in office).Relationships between state and federal courtsSeparate from, but not entirely independent of, this federal court system are the court systems of each state, each dealing with, in addition to federal law when not deemed preempted, a state's own laws, and having its own court rules and procedures. Although state governments and the federal government are legally dual sovereigns, the Supreme Court of the United States is in many cases the appellate court from the State Supreme Courts (e.g., absent the Court countenancing the applicability of the doctrine of adequate and independent State grounds). The Supreme Courts of each state are by this doctrine the final authority on the interpretation of the applicable state's laws and Constitution. Many state constitution provisions are equal in breadth to those of the U.S. Constitution, but are considered "parallel" (thus, where, for example, the right to privacy pursuant to a state constitution is broader than the federal right to privacy, and the asserted ground is explicitly held to be "independent", the question can be finally decided in a State Supreme Court—the U.S. Supreme Court will decline to take jurisdiction).A State Supreme Court, other than of its own accord, is bound only by the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of federal law, but is not bound by interpretation of federal law by the federal court of appeals for the federal circuit in which the state is included, or even the federal district courts located in the state, a result of the dual sovereigns concept. Conversely, a federal district court hearing a matter involving only a question of state law (usually through diversity jurisdiction) must apply the substantive law of the state in which the court sits, a result of the application of the Erie Doctrine; however, at the same time, the case is heard under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence instead of state procedural rules (that is, the application of the Erie Doctrine only extends to a requirement that a federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction apply substantive state law, but not procedural state law, which may be different). Together, the laws of the federal and state governments form U.S. law.Elections and votingMain article: Elections in the United StatesSuffrage, commonly known as the ability to vote, has changed significantly over time. In the early years of the United States, voting was considered a matter for state governments, and was commonly restricted to white men who owned land. Direct elections were mostly held only for the U.S. House of Representatives and state legislatures, although what specific bodies were elected by the electorate varied from state to state. Today, U.S. citizens have almost universal suffrage from the age of 18.State, tribal and local governmentsMain articles: State governments of the United States, Tribal sovereignty in the United States and Local government in the United StatesThe state governments tend to have the greatest influence over most Americans' daily lives.Each state has its own written constitution, government and code of laws. The Constitution stipulates only that each state must have, "a Republican Government". Therefore, there are often great differences in law and procedure between individual states, concerning issues such as property, crime, health and education.... The highest elected official of each state is the Governor....As a result of the Supreme Court case Worcester v. Georgia, American Indian tribes are considered "domestic dependent nations" that operate as sovereign governments subject to federal authority but, generally and where possible, outside of the jurisdiction of state governments.... Tribal citizenship and voting rights are typically restricted to individuals of native descent, but tribes are free to set whatever citizenship requirements they wish.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.It is not that difficult to determine the meaning of these terms as used in the Second Amendment. Though not a scholar, I have some experience in linguistics and textual and historical criticism, so I will give my opinion. It is critical to research how these words were used in a similar context in the historical documents of the time. Though I said it was not difficult to determine the meaning of these words, I did not say it would be simple or short. It takes time to sift through historical documents to see how these words were used during that period, and I provide just a few examples, though there are many more.It is also important to note that the meaning of the words and the meaning of the entire text are different things, though the former has bearing upon the latter. Historical and linguistic context are critical in determining the meaning of the entire text, as we tend to interpret things by the context we know today rather than the historical context in which it was written. We first have to know what the writers of the Constitution were speaking of before we can determine how that applies to legal situations today.The first word is easy. “Arms” as used at the time has basically the same meaning as today: weapons capable of being used for offense or defense. At the time, this referred to muskets, long rifles, pistols, bayonets, sabers, mortars, cannon, etc. and the necessary ammunition. Since cannon and mortars were expensive and not many individuals owned them, they may not have necessarily been included in the intent of the amendment, but they met the definition, and were not excluded. Arms meant weapons, then and now.“Well regulated” is probably the most debated and misunderstood term. Both the terms "well regulated militia" and "well regulated army" and “regulating” the militia were often used at that time, and can be found in the Federalist Papers, the Journals of the Continental Congress and various state constitutions.One example is in the Federalist Papers, no. 29, "Concerning the Militia" (The Federalist Papers):The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy. It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense.A second is Virginia’s “An Act for Regulating and Disciplining the Militia” passed by they Virginia Assembly on May 5, 1777, which statedThat a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free stateThe last example is from discussions during the Continental Congress, where the term “well regulated” is so used in reference to the making the American army "a well regulated army" (Journals of the Continental Congress, Vol. 9, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774);Resolved, As the opinion of this Congress that it is essential to the promotion of discipline in the American army and to reformation of the various abuses which prevail in the different departments, that an appointment be made of inspectors general, agreeable to the practice of the best trained European armies:Resolved, That this appointment be conferred on vigilant and experienced general officers, who are acquainted to whatever relates to the general economy, maneuvers and discipline of a well regulated army.To review from time to time the troops, and to see that every officer and soldier be instructed in the exercise and maneuvers which may be established by the Board of War: that rules of discipline are strictly observed, and that officers command their soldiers properly, and do them justice.These and other documents of the time make it clear that when referring to either the militia or the army, “well regulated" meant a militia or army that was properly organized, equipped, drilled, disciplined, and ready to fight. The term was used in conjunction with outfitting a militia or army, training an army or militia through drilling and instruction to prepare them for battle, and making sure officers were trained in tactics and maneuvers that would enable them to direct the militia in battle. In this context, "well regulated" had nothing to do with government regulation of the sale and distribution of firearms to individuals.That brings us to the third word which the question asked to be defined, “militia.” Again, we want to look at the historical use of the word at the time in the same context. The term militia was used in two ways. The first defined the broad category of people who made up the militia: all able-bodied men, in most instances with defined age limits, such as able bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45. If you fit that description you were technically militia. The second use was in referring to an organized body of militia under the control of a state or local government authority. That authority could call up for service the entire militia or a portion thereof.In Colonial America - before the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and US Constitution - towns, counties, and colonies organized the militia for defense. In times of trouble, the militia was called up or activated. For example, the Massachusetts Charter of 1691 gave the royal governor and his officers power totraine instruct Exercise and Governe the Militia there and for the speciall Defence and Safety of Our said Province or Territory to assemble in Martiall Array and put in Warlike posture the Inhabitants of Our said Province or Territory and to lead and Conduct themAlmost a hundred years later at the time of the American Revolution the term militia was used in much the same way, but the government authority under which the militia was organized had changed. As each of the colonies determined that they had the right to govern themselves independently from the British Crown and Parliament, each colony and later each state set up laws governing militias in their constitution or in separate legislation, or both.The Militia Act of 1775 formalized the organization of the militia in Pennsylvania and a few adjacent areas, as the existing groups of militia werevery willing to defend themselves and their Country, and desirous of being formed into regular Bodies for that Purpose, instructed and disciplined under proper Officers, with suitable and legal Authority; representing withal, that unless Measures of this Kind are taken, so as to unite them together, subject them to due Command, and thereby give them Confidence in each other, they cannot assemble to oppose the Enemy, without the utmost Danger of exposing themselves to Confusion and Destruction.The section of the Virginia Declaration of Rights June 12, 1776 addressing the militia had similar language to the Second Amendment, but does not mention the right to bear arms:That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state.Subsequently, the Virginia Assembly passed “An Act for Regulating and Disciplining the Militia” on May 5, 1777. It is a lengthy document fully outlining the makeup and organization of the Virginia militia. The act stated the militia were to beformed into companies of not less than thirty two, nor more than sixty eight. . . and these companies shall again be formed into battalions of not more than one thousand, nor less than five hundred men, if there be so many in the county. . . Each company shall be commanded by a captain, two lieutenants, and an ensign; each battalion by a colonel, lieutenant colonel, and major, who shall take precedence and command of each other according to rank and seniority, and the whole by a county lieutenant. These officers shall be resident within their county, and before they enter on the execution of their office shall, in presence of the court of the same county, take the following oath: I [space] do swear, that I will be faithful and true to the commonwealth of Virginia, of which I profess myself to be a citizen. . .There shall be a private muster of every company once in every month, except the months of January and February, at such convenient time and place as the captain, or next commanding officer, shall appoint, and a general muster in each county, on some day in the months of April and October, in every year, to be appointed by the county lieutenant, or other commanding officerOther state constitutions and documents specifically use the term militia in this manner. In all of these quoted documents and others written at the time, just prior to the writing of Second Amendment, the use of the term militia always referred to a body organized under the authority and command of a duly recognized government. Such militias were to be well regulated: organized, trained, outfitted, prepared for battle, and led by officers answerable to the government. Militias at the time were not activated until a government authority called them into action, usually a state governor, but also local officials. During the American Revolution these local and state militias were called up under various authorities and provided the bulk of the fighting power, particularly until army “regulars” under Congressional control could be outfitted and trained, but also throughout the war.Technically, that completes the answer to the question, which asked merely what these terms meant. However, since the Second Amendment and its meaning are at the heart of the current debate about gun control, and since various self-appointed bodies claiming to be militia are arming themselves today and patrolling the streets, I will extend my answer to talk about the overall meaning of the text.First, since we have just discussed it, note that in the documents of the time the term militia never refers to a band of citizens who take it upon themselves to use armed force apart from the authority of a government body. Though in one sense the term militia was used to define all able-bodied men in a municipality, county, or state, the idea of a group of armed citizens from this pool of men banding together and using armed force apart from a government authority was not entertained as healthy to the peace and security of a state or the nation. In fact, it was the fear of such groups that eventually led to the adoption of the US Constitution. Armed insurrections began to occur in the new nation, the most well known being the 1786–87 Shay’s Rebellion in Massachusetts. This rebellion began in rural Massachusetts as citizens there rebelled against state taxes and bank practices they felt were unfair toward farmers and rural landowners. Though many were sympathetic, state and national officials, including George Washington, became alarmed as a large group of armed citizens through threat of force shut down courts and tax collectors. In historical documents referring to Shay’s rebellion and others incidents, a clear distinction can be seen between a duly appointed militia and an unauthorized band of armed citizens. Participants in Shay’s Rebellion “marched on the federal Springfield Armory (at which weapons were not only manufactured but also stored) in an unsuccessful attempt to seize its weaponry and overthrow the government.” Under the Articles of Confederation, the “federal government found itself unable to finance troops to put down the rebellion, and it was consequently put down by the Massachusetts State militia and a privately funded local militia.”The Whiskey Rebellion of 1791–94 is another example. It began as farmers in western Pennsylvania refused to pay the federal tax on whiskey, took up arms against federal authority, burned the home of a tax collector, and some threatened to declare independence from the United States. To stem the insurrection, President Washington asked several state governors to call up their militias according to the Militia Acts of 1792. This militia force of over 12,000 was federalized by President Washington to march to western Pennsylvania and put down the insurrection. To show this militia was federally sanctioned, President Washington, the hero of the American Revolution, ceremonially led the militia on horseback for a time as they marched west. The 500 or so armed tax resistors were not considered militia, they were considered insurrectionists, in rebellion against the United States.Fries's Rebellion was a similar incident in 1800, and again based on opposition to a federal tax by Congress. In this case, a local group of militia, unauthorized by the state, attempted to detain federal tax collectors. Federal marshals arrested some of the armed group, but later other armed members of the group, under threat of violence, forced their release. President John Adams and Congress used both federal troops and duly authorized state militia to arrest the unauthorized armed group of insurrectionists and bring them to trial in federal court.These incidents make two things quite clear. First, now that the states had become independent and had representative governments, citizens were expected to pay their taxes. Second, unauthorized bands of armed citizens who opposed the laws of the state or federal government by violent means would not be tolerated. In the first incident, under the Articles of Confederation the weak federal government could not act, so duly authorized state militias put down the insurrection.Shay’s Rebellion was one of the reasons the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution, in which the federal government was strengthened to be better prepared to deal with domestic and foreign threats. In the second two incidents occurring after the Constitution had been adopted, the President of the United States and Congress expected citizens of the United States to pay their federal taxes. This was not taxation without representation, as they were represented in Congress by duly elected officials. If they opposed the tax, they had peaceful and legal means to express their opposition. Again, the President, Congress, state governors, and state governments would not allow groups of armed individuals or an unauthorized group of militia to roam the country and use violence or the threat of force just because they disagreed with the the law. Such groups were considered insurrectionists, in rebellion against the United States. The organization of lawful US militia has changed over the years with the passage of several laws, but the basic premise of militias remains the same (see notes at end). The state militias include the National Guard, Naval Militias, and State Defense Forces. All able-bodied men between 17 and 45 are considered part of the “unorganized militia” eligible to be called up to serve, but only if current laws concerning compulsory service are changed, either temporarily or permanently.It is both sad and ironic that today unauthorized groups of armed individuals acting apart from any government authority consider themselves patriotic militias and appeal to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers they so revere. By all the official documents and writings of the Founding Fathers, they would have considered these groups dangerous, at best, or illegal, depending on their activities. It is not illegal to form a group to collectively conduct training in firearms or even military tactics. It is illegal for such a group to claim or assert official authority or take military or law enforcement action as a group. The type of law and order envisioned by state and national leaders in the newly formed United States was one that existed through the will of the people as expressed through their elected officials, who were to create local law enforcement and well regulated militias answerable to the government elected by the people. It was the will of the people as they expressed it through duly elected representatives that mattered, not the opinion of a group of people who believed government should function according to their ideas of how it should be run.Let’s now look at the entire Second Amendment and its grammatical construction. As you may know, there were four written versions of the second amendment ratified by various states, the main difference being in capitalization and punctuation. This was not uncommon for that era, as government documents were handwritten, and capitalization, punctuation, and even spelling were not as standardized as they became after type-printed government and legal documents became the norm. In my opinion, these differences did not in any way change the meaning of the amendment as written. This is the version originally approved by Congress for ratification by the states:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.Here is one variation, with the first comma omitted, which was the version approved by New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. In my opinion, this is the most “correct” punctuation in that it separates the two main ideas contained in the amendment, and probably the one most used today, but in any case the meaning is the same in all versions.A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.The first part of the amendment is introductory, making a statement supporting the validity of the rest of the amendment. It is easier to distinguish this if you look at it from the interrogative:Q: Why should the right of the people to keep and bear arms not be infringed?A: Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.Now comes a key definition, not included in the original question: who are “the people” who have the right to keep and bear arms? In the context of language used at the time, there are only two possibilities. “The people” is used as a collective term to represent all of the people in a state or the nation. It is also used to allude to the collective will of the people expressed by the government through representatives of the people. The Tenth Amendment makes this distinction:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.In the Preamble to the Constitution, “the people” is used in the second sense.We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.Obviously, all of the people in the United States did not collaborate in the writing of the United States Constitution. Rather, their representatives at the Constitutional Convention entered into debate and discussion to forge and approve the document. It was then ratified by Conventions in each state representing the people of each state.“The people” was used in state constitutions, also. The Virginia Constitution opened with, “A declaration of rights made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia.” New York’s Constitution made its declarations, “in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State.” South Carolina’s constitution stated the framers to be Serving as a “full and free representation of the people.” In the Massachusetts constitution you find, “We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts” and in Pennsylvania’s “the people of this State.”The people, then, who have this right are the people of the United States, or in each state, and the governments who represent the will of the people. The Tenth Amendment, which was added primarily to allay the fears of anti-Federalists, makes clear what the Constitution and first nine amendments had already established: In matters of individual and states rights, if any branch of the Federal government using its proper authority had not or could not exercise that authority on a matter of governance or individual liberty, state governments had the right to do so, and if the matter had not been acted upon by the state government, the people retained the right to make their own decision, including their right to address a matter through representative government - be it local, state or federal.The Tenth Amendment was patterned after a similar statement in the Articles of Confederation, Article II:Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.That the Second Amendment speaks of both states and “the people” makes sense, as the context of the Second Amendment and the nine other amendments that came to be known as the Bill of Rights was the resolution of the conflict between the Federalists and anti-Federalists over the authority of the federal government over the states, and the principle that all just governments derive their authority from the people. For various reasons, from trade to slavery to fear of centralized power, individual states wanted autonomy on certain matters. Originally, the binding together of the states came about as each colonial government sought to become independent of British rule. The loosely written Articles of Confederation attested to the reluctance to yield power to a central authority. As it became clear the collective United States needed better protection from foreign powers and internal insurrections, a Constitutional Convention was called so “the people” could “form a more perfect Union” between the state governments. The bitter disagreement between Federalists and anti-Federalists, and the different priorities of the states with an economy based on agriculture and slave labor vs the other states, resulted in many compromises, such as the Three-Fifths Compromise.Perhaps the most significant compromise was the addition of the Bill of Rights, which several state Constitutions already had. Federalists who had opposed a bill of rights being in the Constitution now supported it being added by Amendment. It speaks well of those on both sides that these differences were resolved peacefully. That is not to say that the Federalists, anti-Federalists, delegates to the Constitutional Convention, state governors, and state legislators always acted nobly or without self-interest. It does mean that, having just survived a costly war for independence, they valued the peaceful, political resolution of differences over armed conflict. There were a few anti-Federalists who wanted to resist the implementation of the new Constitution by force. However, even the ardent anti-Federalist Patrick Henry refused to take up arms against a government established by the will of the people, and other prominent anti-Federalists agreed. The Constitution was now the law of the land, so compromise was sought to add a Bill of Rights to protect the rights of the people and the states.I said all that to again emphasize it would be historically inaccurate to think that the Second Amendment was not written in the context of protecting the rights of state governments duly elected by the people. State governors and state legislatures had the right and duty to protect their citizens, and included in that right and duty was the the establishment, organization, and training of a well regulated militia. Standing armies, like those the British had quartered among the people, were suspect. This was the impetus for the Third Amendment:No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.The best way to keep the necessity of a large standing federal army to a minimum was to have organized, well trained, well outfitted, well commanded state militias available. This was also the best way for each state to protect itself, as deploying a federal force to a threatened region could take weeks. In the case of a threat to the entire nation or an overwhelming threat to one or more states, the federal government at the time, specifically the Executive Branch and the President as Commander in Chief, could call up state militias to be put under federal control, as was done in the case of insurrections, including the Whiskey Rebellion and Fries’ Rebellion.What, then, does the Second Amendment have to do with today’s debate about gun control and the right of a citizen to own firearms? Not much. The right of individuals to own firearms was never questioned at the time the Second Amendment was enacted. It was assumed that most people did own firearms. Though of late there has been a debate about the number of households that owned guns at the time of the American Revolution, written records support a high percentage of gun ownership. Probate inventories are one good source, though obviously incomplete since not every estate went through probate, and often the items listed were incomplete. Still, a study was done of “250 estates of farmers with sufficient itemization to list beds in five counties in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. . . in six, one year samples made between 1714 and 1789. The percentages of guns in probate estates is 60% in the frontier and 50% in more settled regions.” In another comparison of “221 probate inventories in Surry County, a relatively poor agricultural Virginia county, from 1690 to 1715” and where “the staple crops-tobacco and corn-needed to be hoed several times a year” only 34% of estates listed any hoes. However, In the middle income group (30th to 90th percentile), where 35–41% of household estates listed hoes, 63–69% listed guns. Tables were listed at 50-64% and seating furniture at 40-68%. Are we to conclude that only 50% of middle income people had chairs and tables? I think not. More accurately, ownership was transferred without probate or the ownership of these items had been settled apart from probate. The same can be concluded of guns. However you extrapolate it, gun ownership was quite common, probably more common in rural areas but also in urban areas.The second amendment was not specifically about the right of individuals to own firearms. It was about the right of “the people” and their representatives in state and local governments to organize, train, outfit, and maintain militias apart from federal authority. Though many called up to serve in state and local militias used their own firearms, state and local militias also maintained armories in which assorted arms were kept, including canon and mortars but also musket, long rifles, powder, and shot. The Battled of Lexington and Concord began because the colonial militia was alerted that British troops were marching to seize their stores of arms and supplies.Let me restate the significance of the historical context again. The second amendment specifically addressed the right of “the people,” through duly elected state and local governments, to organize, train, outfit, and maintain state and local militias apart from federal control. The second amendment did not address the rights of individuals to own firearms, as that right was already assumed. In my opinion it is wrong for either side of the debate about gun control to deny the historical context in which the Second Amendment was written. It was wrong, in my opinion, for SCOTUS to make any decision about individual gun ownership based solely on the Second Amendment, since the right of individuals to own firearms was already assumed when the Amendment was written. What was in question was the right of “the people” in each state to organize armed militias for their defense apart from the federal government “allowing” them to do so.Here is the larger question: Does this mean the government cannot regulate firearms? No. Absolutely not.Whether you take the position that the Second Amendment protects individual ownership of firearms (as SCOTUS ruled in some instances) or that this right was assumed, that does not mean the government does not have the right to regulate firearms or the conditions under which this right can be exercised. Constitutionally, in order to protect the rights of all citizens, all rights have limitations. Freedom of speech does not mean you can intentionally attempt to persuade a crowd to commit illegal or violent acts. In the case of inciting criminal or violent action, protecting the public takes precedent over free speech.Also, the Federal, State, and local governments have always asserted the right to regulate arms among citizens, which is why you cannot buy an RPG launcher or fully automatic weapon at Walmart, and why there are restrictions on sawed-off shotguns and .50 caliber machine guns. The state of Arkansas had laws making it illegal to carry Certain firearms since 1838.Carrying a weapon has been proscribed in Arkansas since 1838. The earliest version of the law against carrying weapon barred carrying “any pistol, dirk, butcher or large knife, or a sword in a cane, concealed as a weapon, unless upon a journey.” The penalty was one to six months in the county jail and a fine of $25 to $100.Univ. of Arkansas Taff v. StateOver the course of your other weapons were added, but the statute was never challenged on Second Amendment grounds in court. It remained valid until “In the 2019 legislative session, both houses of the Arkansas General Assembly passed resolutions declaring that Arkansas is a constitutional-carry state in light of the Arkansas Court of Appeals’ 2018 decision in Taff v. State” - a case that never mentioned Second Amendment tights, but rather sought to exclude confiscated drugs and a confiscated handgun based on illegal seizure.Another such long was passed in reconstruction Texas in 1870, after the the radical reformist Governor Edmund Davis, appealed to the state legislature because of high violent crime rates in TexasThat summer, the state legislature partially fulfilled Governor Da- vis's request by passing a law forbidding the carrying of any "bowie- knife, dirk or butcher-knife, or fire-arms, whether known as a six shooter, gun or pistol of any kind," at a variety of locations:any church or religious assembly, any school room or other place where persons are assembled for educational, literary or scientific purposes, or into a ball room, social party or other social gathering composed of ladies and gentlemen, or to any election precinct on the day or days of any election . . . or to any other place where people may be assembled to muster or to perform any other public duty, or any other public assembly.”The fine for violating the new law was a whopping $50 to $500 (the modern equivalent of $1,000 to $10,000).Texas A&M Law ReviewOf course, these were state laws.The Federal Government’s first forays into gun control were 1934 National Firearms Act, the 1938 Federal Firearms Act, and the 1968 Gun Control Act. There was no uproar in the 1930s when the federal government regulated the purchase of machine guns. The Thompson submachine gun, or Tommy Gun, had become the favorite weapon of organized crime and was perceived as a threat to the public. None of these laws were ever see as unconstitutional or intrusive by the general public, and in United States v. Miller the law was upheld. Neither were any of these laws intended to question the right of citizens to own firearms. Rather, they dealt with regulating certain types of firearms that presented a significant threat to the general public, and regulating the conditions under which citizens could exercise their rights. The basic rules guiding regulations were:Do such firearms present a threat to the general population?Is there a legitimate reason a citizen might need such firearms?The SCOTUS decision in U.S. vs. Miller is an example, though in my opinion a little too brief and narrow (United States v. Miller).By now, I may have succeeded in upsetting people on both sides of the gun control debate. I also suspect that there are a good number of people who don’t care because, to them, the argument is not about gun ownership, but about reasonable restrictions on gun ownership to protect the public. Most Americans are not members of unauthorized, pseudo-patriotic militias and stockpiling weapons and ammunition to fend off their own government, which in their conspiracy-laden mind is out to get them. Most Americans are not preparing to fight a race war, survive the apocalypse, fight off the Antichrist and his minions, or fight off the zombies. Most Americans are not opposed to universal background checks or firearms registration. Most Americans do not want guns to be confiscated, which is why every piece of legislation to date proposing restricting assault style weapons has contained a grandfather clause, allowing current owners to keep their rifles. Sadly, “most Americans” are not controlling the debate over gun control. The most extreme elements on each side are.Footnote: The organization of lawful US militia has changed over the years with the passage of several laws.Militia (United States) - Wikipedia10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classesMilitia Act of 1903National Defense Act of 1916National Defense Act of 1920I welcome comments by people who disagree with me. I don’t have time for trolls or arguments. Also, if you want to know my opinion on gun control, I suggest you read the following answers.Tom Buczkowski's answer to If the United States banned guns, how many gun owners would rather fight to the death than surrender their guns?Tom Buczkowski's answer to As an American gun owner, would you fight back if law enforcement came to confiscate your firearms?

What does reenlistment in the military mean? I have seen news of a 42-year-old veteran reenroll and go through basic again.Short Answer: It depends. A lot. On many factors unique to each case.Long Answer: Read on for Quora enlightenment (or boredom, for those so inclined!).In the US Armed Forces, a “reenlistment” means you were already an enlisted member of the armed forces at one time, i.e., you already “enlisted” previously for an initial period of obligated service, although that initial enlisted service could have been in any Service, any enlisted grade, for any length of time.[1][1][1][1][2][2][2][2]Most reenlistments are continuous service, meaning the enlisted member simply completed one period of obligated service, and — without a break — began a new period of obligated service. For some members, reenlistment will occur after a break in service (typically defined by the Services as longer than 90 days). For some, even more exotic “breaks” might be in play. Read on to see behind part of the curtain that shrouds the mysteries of “reenlistments…”[3][3][3][3]But first, some necessary definitions and background to better understand.The Department of Defense is comprised of 5 separate Armed Forces, also known as the military Services (in order of precedence):[4][4][4][4][5][5][5][5]Army,MarinesNavy,Air Force, andSpace Force.[6]The sixth Armed Force and military Service (at all times, per statute) is the:Coast Guard, currently operating in the Department of Homeland Security during peacetime, with a wartime mission of transfer to the Department of the Navy for naval service.[7][8]Each of the Armed Forces is, also, by statute a Uniformed Service. The two additional Uniformed Services consist of the Commissioned Corps of the:[9][9][9][9][10][10][10][10]US Public Health Service (USPHS), established in the Department of Health and Human Services, andNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), established in the Department of Commerce.As of this writing, June 2020, of the eight above listed Uniformed Services, each has a reserve component except the Space Force and the NOAA. The USPHS Ready Reserve Corps has had an “on again, off again” existence over the past decades, but was recently reauthorized.[11][11][11][11] The Space Force is likely to eventually have at least a small reserve, but the Space Force itself will be very small, so other options may emerge to provide a surge capability during sustained combat operations if additional “space forces” (howsoever the individual servicemembers of the USSF shall eventually be official named — my favorite, and the obvious: Spacers…).[12][12][12][12]For all enlisted members, this “reenlistment” is done by a standard contract between the Service and the individual, with the agreed upon terms shown on the contract.[13][13][13][13]Officers are not serving in an enlisted status, although all officers begin their service after appointment with some form of statutorily and contractually obligated service. It would be easy to say “officers are not enlisted,” but the truth is more nuanced, so I shall deviate here — in the interest of answering the Question fully — to illuminate the distinctions, so as to add value to this Answer:The term “officers” most commonly describes those servicemembers who are appointed to grade and rank of Office by the President, or delegated Secretarial authority, by commission or warrant of authority.[14]In the US Armed Forces, officers appointed to grades Chief Warrant Officer-2 (W-2) and above are commissioned, and are Constitutionally “Officers of the United States,” and while the “Office upon which entered” might be only a fictional place, each such commission will (eventually, once the written document catches up to the officer…) be accompanied by a parchment scroll (commonly known as the “commissioning scroll”), signed and dated by the:President for some officers (Regulars of the DoD in grades O-4 through O-10, Reserves of the DoD in grades O-6 through O-10),Secretary of Defense for others (Regulars of the DoD in grades W-2 through O-3, Reserves of the DoD in grades W-2 through [15]Officers (both Regulars and Reserves) appointed to the grade of Warrant Officer-1 (W-1) are warranted (by SecDef for DoD, SecDHS for USCG), and while in most respects have the authorities, respect, and customs and courtesies extended to commissioned officers, do have certain limits placed by legal considerations, and in the absence of a commission are not Constitutional “Officers of the United States.”[16]There are also uncommissioned officers, who by long-standing custom have many of the characteristics of commissioned officers, but do not rank with them, and in the last century their status has slowly declined in spite of certain remaining aspects that signify their status:[17]Cadets and Midshipmen are appointed by the President to their Offices, but lacking commissions (or warrants since 1912), yet retaining inchoate officer status as recognized by an unbroken string of court decisions over the last 200+ years, and the lack of a commission means they cannot be Constitutional “Officers of the United States.”[18]The Cadets and Midshipmen of the Service Academies (Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard) are — by definition — neither commissioned or warranted officers, nor are they enlisted members. They exist in a special gray area, carved out explicitly for them, as inchoate officers:Cadets and midshipmen are neither commissioned officers nor enlisted personnel; they occupy a unique status between the two.199 Army regulations place the rank of a cadet below commissioned and warrant officers, but above enlisted ranks.200 Cadets have been referred to as “inchoate” officers, and generally must be afforded the legal rights and courtesies accorded to a commissioned officer.201[19][19][19][19]Having been relieved of line authority in operations, Cadets and Midshipmen yet remain subject to the bright-line test of “officership”: they must act as officers, or violate Article 138 of the UCMJ, Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Gentlemen. Only commissioned officers, cadets, and midshipmen are subject to Article 138 — not even Warrant Officers-1 are subject to this beacon of expected officership.[20]Further, like other commissioned and warranted officers, cadets and midshipmen cannot be separated punitively by a special court-martial — only a General Court-Martial (GCM) has sufficient jurisdiction to discharge them from the Service. And if convicted by a GCM, commissioned officers (W-2 and up), Cadets, and Midshipmen are dismissed from the Service, as opposed to Warrant Officers (W-1) and enlisted members being dishonorably discharged from the Service. See Rule for Court-Martial 1003(c)(2)(A).[21]And, as signified right in their title, noncommissioned and petty officers are delegated a sliver of Constitutional authority, and several centuries of common law and custom has brought forward their authority in a “Publick Office.”[22] Each of the Services defines its NCO’s and PO’s slightly differently, but each is empowered with significant authority, as recognized in the treatment of disobeying, disrespecting, or assaulting NCO’s/PO’s under the UCMJ, and in the inherent authority granted to NCO’s/PO’s to apprehend violators of the UCMJ, quell affrays, and otherwise take command when required.[23][24]The above classes of officers now defined, however, the inevitable loopholes, wormholes, black holes, etc., open up the need for yet more definitions before we return to the original Question:Temporary commissions (and warrants). Various laws provide for the temporary appointment of both civilians (without military status), and enlisted members, and those already holding a commission or warrant, to a temporary grade above their permanent grade (or lack thereof for a civilian).[25]In the past, this was more common, and entire classes of officers, both commissioned and warranted, held entirely different sets of status, on the one hand they were “officers,” yet the other hand showed them as “enlisted.” And further complicating matters, the commission (or warrant) was often granted in the reserve component, while the permanent status remained as Regulars (although there times this could be reversed, to even more confusion…).[26]This state of affairs often resulted in temporary officers (especially of the reserve component), serving for some specified or indefinite period of time on active duty, while they simultaneously served an enlisted contract in the active component, and at times were considered for promotion in both statuses…confusion reigned.The Army ceased the practice by the 1990’s of having soldiers serve simultaneously with a reserve commission and a regular enlistment, and the enactment of the Warrant Officer Management Act, or WOMA (along with the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act [DOPMA] and the Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act [ROPMA], all from the late 1980’s and early 1990’s), greatly reduced the use and need in the Services for continued bifurcated status between temporary officer and permanent enlisted, or reserve officer and regular enlisted, or temporary officer and permanent warrant officer, etc.[27]As an example: the Army’s previous Dual Component Personnel Management Program, under (now obsolete) Army Regulation 600–39, provided the Army’s guidance on appointment of serving Regular Army enlisted members with exceptional potential to commissioned status as second lieutenants (or higher grades in specific instances) in the Army Reserve, with the end goal to prepare the soldier to assume an officer’s role during full mobilization in time of war or national emergency, after which they would revert to their underlying Regular Army warrant officer or enlisted status.[28]See Richard Cooper’s excellent Quora Answer on this topic: In the 1980’s, when I was an enlisted soldier in the regular army, I had a sergeant I served with say he also held a reserve officers commission. Was that really possible?However, the Navy and Coast Guard remain keen on the use, even today, of temporary commissions/warrants, as a means of providing officers, yet withholding their “permanent” appointment until certain amounts of time and/or other actions are completed.[29] [30]And there are also pockets, here and there, of specialized officers even today with temporary commissions, such as the officers appointed to lead the Marine Band and the Marine Drum and Bugle Corps, provisions of which are embedded in law and stretch back decades.[31] [32]In the event of a temporary commission (or warrant), the underlying permanent status of the member doesn’t change, so there are, in fact, some officers who hold grade and rank as commissioned or warranted officers, and are treated in most things as if they held permanent grade and rank, but in truth are temporary placeholders in that grade/rank while their permanent status is something else, most often a senior enlisted status as an NCO/PO.[33]Cadets and Midshipmen of the Senior ROTC Program (Army, Air Force, Navy/Marine). Unlike the cadets and midshipmen of the Service Academies, the SROTC cadets and midshipmen hold a dual-status: all must be, by law, enlisted into the reserve component of their Service before they may take Office as a cadet or midshipman, and are appointed using delegated Presidential authority by their Service Secretaries, not directly by the hand of the President himself.[34]While the general expectations of officership are levied upon SROTC cadets and midshipmen, and are enforced administratively at all times, only Navy SROTC midshipmen are subject to the UCMJ, and then only when under official orders to active (or inactive) duty for training. (This is a quirk of the combination of the former Army and Navy sets of disciplinary regulations during the amalgamation of the UCMJ in 1950, where the Navy formerly asserted disciplinary authority over reserves while the Army did not…some of that made its way into the UCMJ, where it has resided for 70 years.)[35]However, for most purposes, there is no other distinction made between the inchoate officers of the SROTC, and their inchoate officer comrades of the Service Academies, as neither are commissioned or warranted as officers, today hold line authority, or can be Constitutional “Officers of the United States” in the absence of a commission.With that historical and definitional treatise out of the way, exposing the Byzantine inner workings of officer appointments and overlaps with enlisted status (more common than is readily acknowledged), we return to the original Question:What does reenlistment in the military mean? I have seen news of a 42-year-old veteran reenroll and go through basic again.As noted above, “reenlistment” is the process of enlisting — again, having once enlisted before — into one of the Armed Forces, either the active component (Regular) or reserve component.[36][36][36][36] Recall, also, that the two statutory Uniformed Services, USPHS and NOAA, do not have enlisted (or warrant officer) members at all, only commissioned officers and civilian officers and employees of those Services.[37][37][37][37]The “standard” reenlistment is:[38][38][38][38]Currently serving servicemember wishes to continue serving, maintain their career progression, etc.Their military command counsels them and coordinates up the chain to ensure that not only is the member qualified to reenlist, but there is a vacancy into which they may reenlist. Many first-term members do not wish to reenlist, and so end their current period of obligated service (whether reserve or active). But others do wish to reenlist, and their Service must determine if there is a “boatspace,” “billet,” etc., within that Service’s second (and subsequent) term career management opportunities. Depending on their grade, Service, training, special skills, even those who wish to reenlist may not be permitted to do so. Or, their career field may be wide open to reenlistments and they are welcomed as a “careerist” after their reenlistment with open arms. It depends on many factors.[39]Upon approval of the reenlistment, the DD-4 Enlistment/Reenlistment form is completed, along with various other forms.[40]The servicemember is discharged — technically — for a brief window (and they may be given the chance to speak as a civilian before the words of the reenlistment document are read aloud…the smart civilian in that situation says nothing to jeopardize the next 3 minutes when their career will reignite and continue…).[41]The member is then reenlisted, and restates the Oath of Enlistment.[42]Their career continues, in a “career path” track as established by their Service’s manpower management.There are variations on this theme, though:As part of the reenlistment process, they may be denied reenlistment in their present specialty, but offered reenlistment (a “lateral move”) to another career field.As part of the reenlistment process, other factors such as bonuses, duty station preferences, training courses, etc., may be included…or not, as the situation evolves.Transferring during the initial 8-year Military Service Obligation,[43] the statutory initial service contract, from the active component to the reserve component, or vice versa, is not technically “reenlistment,” but there may be incentives, lateral moves to new specialties, even bonuses or duty station guarantees involved.A member who may have already reenlisted once, i.e., they are a “careerist,” may reenlist a second, third, or more times, whether in the active or reserve component, and each reenlistment may involve not only approvals, but also certain negotiation about any incentives such as training, duty stations, bonuses, etc.And then, there are the extreme outlier cases of “reenlistment,” where the individual might not have served in any military status (active or reserve) for quite some time (perhaps even years), and must be “brought back online” in many ways as if they had never served, their “reenlistment” treated more like an initial enlistment because of the true “break in service” that took their career off line. Such “reenlistments” typically require a new security background clearance, new medical waivers and examinations, providing many documents to reestablish qualifications, etc. These situations may — or may not — result in the member beginning service at their previous grade (or specialty), as the Service may determine that approval of the request is contingent on the individual serving at a lower (or higher) grade, or a different job specialty, or at undesirable duty stations, etc.A variation of this theme is a prior-enlisted service member, who then is appointed and serves at least their minimum obligated service as a commissioned or warrant officer, but for some reason requests to be “reenlisted” (or “revert” in some regulations) to their former enlisted status:[44][44][44][44]The officer fails selection or otherwise is involuntarily denied further officer service due to a reason such as a Reduction-in-Force, and requests “reenlistment” to continue their service, orThe officer had previously resigned their commission/warrant, and was completely without military status, but for some reason requested to “reenlist” to again serve. This might occur not just for personal reasons, but if the former officer was no longer qualified for a commission/warrant, but could still qualify to serve as an enlisted member, as there are certain requirements that apply only to officers.Each Service has internal procedures to evaluate the requests/applications from officers or former officers who request to “enlist/reenlist” in either the active or reserve component (with approval more likely, but not guaranteed in any case, in the reserves).[45]Each Service also works with law and regulations pertaining to age, with a bewildering array of differences, exceptions, waivers, etc., defining the maximum age for enlistment/reenlistment/appointment. In general, it is easier for a prior-service member to again serve, and it is easier to again serve enlisted than as an officer, but no guarantees are made based on individual circumstances and the various laws and regulations that apply, the fitness of the applicant, etc.[46][46][46][46]See the below graphic, which is not definitive, in and of itself, because there can be waivers even to these rules:(Image courtesy of: How Old Can You Be When Enlisting?)As for a requirement to “go through basic again,” from the OP’s original Question:What About Basic Training?When you want to re-enlist, in order to get prior service, you must have 6-months of post basic-training experience at minimum. You may have to go back to basic training even if you do have 180 days in the military if you were still in AIT or ADT. The branch you’re entering can also determine whether or not you’re going to do basic training again. Many military branches also consider the time you have spent away from service as a factor (even though many won’t tell you this).With the Marines, you’re more than likely going to have to go through Boot Camp again, especially if you’re transferring from another branch. In the Army, other branch members (except for the Marine Corps) will have to attend a special course. Marines will only have to do the course if they have spent more than three years out of service. The Navy requires that basic training is literally a case-by-case basis, and if someone’s joining the Air Force with prior service, most soldiers will attend a familiarization course, although some of the soldiers will have to go through basic training again anyway.The Coast Guard is a special case in which a non-Coast Guard branch that has served 2 or more years of active duty service will only have to go to a 30-day basic camp, while anyone else with less than two years will have to do the full training course.(Courtesy of: Can You Rejoin the Military?)As the author of that article noted, the Service may decide who has to repeat basic training/boot camp, or an abbreviated version in some Services, as well as deciding whether retraining in their original (or a new) MOS or job specialty is required.The longer the individual has been discharged, the more likely they are to require “remedial” training, whether the entire “Initial Active Duty for Training” package of basic training followed by MOS courses and any other Service-specific training, or merely On the Job Training (OJT).But no single case is absolutely definitive, because a veteran may have left the Service years ago, but return having obtained very specialized and in demand skills, perhaps as a medical professional, or a scientist, or a cyber or space operator.The Services have the authority not only waive many rules, but request specific statutory waivers from Congress if necessary, and for many officers reappoint at least to their previous commissioned/warrant grade, if not higher based on their skills and the Service’s need. For those who are enlisted/reenlisted, the Services have nearly plenary authority to determine the grade in which enlisted/reenlisted, subject to only a few laws, because most enlisted manpower management is explicitly left to the Services. In such cases, a highly qualified prior-service (even many years ago) might be reenlisted (or enlisted, if they had only served as an officer) directly in pay grade E-6 or even E-7, without need of entry level training. (Congress requires that appointment to E-8 requires at least 8 years of service, and appointment to E-9 requires 10 years of service, but even those are merely laws that could be waived in extreme cases if pushed by a Service…).BOTTOM LINE: after all of this background, and discussion, here is (finally) the certain verdict, and Answer to the Question — “It depends. On many factors unique to each case.”Footnotes[1] 10 U.S. Code § 508 - Reenlistment: qualifications[1] 10 U.S. Code § 508 - Reenlistment: qualifications[1] 10 U.S. Code § 508 - Reenlistment: qualifications[1] 10 U.S. Code § 508 - Reenlistment: qualifications[2] 10 U.S. Code § 12101 - Definition[2] 10 U.S. Code § 12101 - Definition[2] 10 U.S. Code § 12101 - Definition[2] 10 U.S. Code § 12101 - Definition[3] https://www.presby.edu/doc/military/DDForm-4.pdf[3] https://www.presby.edu/doc/military/DDForm-4.pdf[3] https://www.presby.edu/doc/military/DDForm-4.pdf[3] https://www.presby.edu/doc/military/DDForm-4.pdf[4] 10 U.S. Code § 101 - Definitions[4] 10 U.S. Code § 101 - Definitions[4] 10 U.S. Code § 101 - Definitions[4] 10 U.S. Code § 101 - Definitions[5] https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN20654_R600_25_Admin_FINAL.pdf[5] https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN20654_R600_25_Admin_FINAL.pdf[5] https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN20654_R600_25_Admin_FINAL.pdf[5] https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN20654_R600_25_Admin_FINAL.pdf[6] Q&A: Nukes, Space Force, and Change - Air Force Magazine[7] 14 U.S. Code § 101 - Establishment of Coast Guard[8] 14 U.S. Code § 103 - Department in which the Coast Guard operates[9] 42 U.S. Code § 201 - Definitions[9] 42 U.S. Code § 201 - Definitions[9] 42 U.S. Code § 201 - Definitions[9] 42 U.S. Code § 201 - Definitions[10] 33 U.S. Code § 3002 - Definitions[10] 33 U.S. Code § 3002 - Definitions[10] 33 U.S. Code § 3002 - Definitions[10] 33 U.S. Code § 3002 - Definitions[11] USPHS Ready Reserve Corps Becomes Law With the CARES Act[11] USPHS Ready Reserve Corps Becomes Law With the CARES Act[11] USPHS Ready Reserve Corps Becomes Law With the CARES Act[11] USPHS Ready Reserve Corps Becomes Law With the CARES Act[12] Senators Endorse Space Force Reserve But Question Guard - Air Force Magazine[12] Senators Endorse Space Force Reserve But Question Guard - Air Force Magazine[12] Senators Endorse Space Force Reserve But Question Guard - Air Force Magazine[12] Senators Endorse Space Force Reserve But Question Guard - Air Force Magazine[13] CERTIFICATE OF RELEASE OR DISCHARGE FROM ACTIVE DUTY (DD FORM 214/5 SERIES)[13] CERTIFICATE OF RELEASE OR DISCHARGE FROM ACTIVE DUTY (DD FORM 214/5 SERIES)[13] CERTIFICATE OF RELEASE OR DISCHARGE FROM ACTIVE DUTY (DD FORM 214/5 SERIES)[13] CERTIFICATE OF RELEASE OR DISCHARGE FROM ACTIVE DUTY (DD FORM 214/5 SERIES)[14] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/URLs_Cited/OT2016/15-1251/15-1251-1.pdf[15] commissioned officers of the armed forces[16] 10 U.S. Code § 571 - Warrant officers: grades[17] https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/officers-united-states-within-meaning-appointments-clause, p. 15[18] Commissioning Officers[19] Untitled Page[19] Untitled Page[19] Untitled Page[19] Untitled Page[20] https://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/Documents/2019%20MCM%20(Final)%20(20190108).pdf?ver=2019-01-11-115724-610, p. A2-47[21] https://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/Documents/2019%20MCM%20(Final)%20(20190108).pdf?ver=2019-01-11-115724-610, p. II-150[22] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/URLs_Cited/OT2016/15-1251/15-1251-1.pdf, p. 22[23] https://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/Documents/2019%20MCM%20(Final)%20(20190108).pdf?ver=2019-01-11-115724-610[24] https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Publications/ncobackbone.pdf, p. 14[25] TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS IN OFFICER GRADES[26] https://ahec.armywarcollege.edu/documents/Temporary_Promotions_of_U.S._Army_Officers.pdf[27] DOPMA/ROPMA Reference[28] AR 600-39 1986 (OBSOLETE) : Dual component personnel management program. :: Obsolete Military Manuals[29] https://www.secnav.navy.mil/doni/directives/01000%20military%20personnel%20support/01-400%20promotion%20and%20advancement%20programs/1420.1B%20OPNAV.pdf[30] https://media.defense.gov/2018/May/16/2001917927/-1/-1/0/CIM_1100_2F.PDF[31] The United States Marine Drum & Bugle Corps[32] https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/SECNAVINST%201412.9B.pdf[33] 10 U.S. Code § 603 - Appointments in time of war or national emergency[34] 10 U.S. Code § 2107 - Financial assistance program for specially selected members[35] 10 U.S. Code § 802 - Art. 2. Persons subject to this chapter[36] https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/130426p.pdf?ver=2018-10-26-085822-050[36] https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/130426p.pdf?ver=2018-10-26-085822-050[36] https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/130426p.pdf?ver=2018-10-26-085822-050[36] https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/130426p.pdf?ver=2018-10-26-085822-050[37] What's in a Name? Demystifying the Collective Services[37] What's in a Name? Demystifying the Collective Services[37] What's in a Name? Demystifying the Collective Services[37] What's in a Name? Demystifying the Collective Services[38] https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN19733_R601_280_FINAL.pdf[38] https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN19733_R601_280_FINAL.pdf[38] https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN19733_R601_280_FINAL.pdf[38] https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN19733_R601_280_FINAL.pdf[39] https://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/reference/milpersman/1000/1100Recruitinig/Documents/1160-030.pdf[40] https://www.uab.edu/armyrotc/images/DD_Form_4_-_1-2.pdf[41] https://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/reference/milpersman/1000/1100Recruitinig/Documents/1160-020.pdf[42] 10 U.S. Code § 502 - Enlistment oath: who may administer[43] 10 U.S. Code § 651 - Members: required service[44] https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN7242_P601_280_FINAL.pdf[44] https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN7242_P601_280_FINAL.pdf[44] https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN7242_P601_280_FINAL.pdf[44] https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN7242_P601_280_FINAL.pdf[45] https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/131203p.pdf?ver=2018-12-28-080819-550[46] Army Age Limit For 2020: Limits For Reserve, Enlisted, And Officers[46] Army Age Limit For 2020: Limits For Reserve, Enlisted, And Officers[46] Army Age Limit For 2020: Limits For Reserve, Enlisted, And Officers[46] Army Age Limit For 2020: Limits For Reserve, Enlisted, And Officers