Fire Arms Rights News & Views

know your rights with fire Arms,
Seek to understand the difference between the views of the paid common defense and Militia Reserve.


http://storywrite.com/column/9470897-_Fire_Arms_2nd_Amendment_Rights___news_and_...



I was reading a piece on www.sodahead.com about a poll for or about the rights to carry and or the support of at protest..

Note the only reason the Police can carry is because of the 2nd Amendment when not on the clock read up on H.R. 218.
http://www.fop.net/legislative/issues/hr218/hr218faq.pdf

I do not understand the views of people that claim to be American questioning the rights of the Militia or the Reserves in the concept every one is of members of the League of common defense as part of the United States, The police that are and was at and or will be at every event as like protest are just being paid to be to ensure equal force and protection of is so shown! Read up on the Dick AcT 1902-1903 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, http://www.meetup.com/usconstitution-33/boards/thread/7361877/?thread=73618...


Case research of views see, read up such views like the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.
As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable,
and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of
the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the
peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy
v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.txt

., As I understand the reason for the paid common defense to be at such events would be to ensure to secure the Borders of the protection of base core views so out lined in the history to the say the 3rd Amendment now that is the view of the Caslte Doctrine or Stand your ground laws equal too common law and the just restraint of entry of Armed persons with warrants. Its called consent of etc...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine


Learn the rights and history of the use summons and subpoena To Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest..

.



Learn what Habeas corpus can do years after the fact if you have had your rights so taken from you by a so called Constitutional protective orders and or federal convictions,, learn What Writ of Mandamus can do http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandamus ,

Learn the history of The Civil rights Acts and or Force Act 1833-1871 .wikipedia --it is unconstitutional for officers of the states I e Elected person of the leadership of the league of the common defense to seek to deprive the rights of, this is in line with the views of the 9th Amendment.


contact Governor Daniels immediately and respectfully urge him to sign SB 1 into law! here or call his office at 317-232-4567.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2012/03/indiana-general-asse...

Indiana General Assembly Votes to
Uphold U.S. and Indiana Constitutions
Ask Governor Daniels to sign Senate Bill 1 into law and protect Hoosiers 4th Amendment rights Via the Historical views of the 3rd Amendment..from Common Laws and reasonable consent of entry of Armed persons.

http://www.​​​​​​defensivecarry.com
Two new carry bills go into effect in Indiana
Senate Bill 0292
2011 1st Regular Session

Latest Information
DIGEST OF SB 292 (Updated April 29, 2011 8:21 pm - DI 69)
Preemption of local firearm regulation. Prohibits, with certain exceptions, a political subdivision from regulating: (1) firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories; (2) the ownership, possession, carrying, transportation, registration, transfer, and storage of firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories; and (3) commerce in and taxation of firearms, firearm ammunition, and firearm accessories. Allows a person to file an action against a political subdivision if the person is adversely affected by an ordinance, a measure, an enactment, a rule, or a policy of the political subdivision that violates the law. Repeals a conflicting statute concerning local regulation of firearms.
Current Status:law enacted

DIGEST OF SB506 (Updated April 19, 2011 2:59 pm - DI 84)
Handgun possession. Allows a person to carry a handgun without being licensed to carry a handgun if: (1) the person is in or on property, or in a vehicle, that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by the person; (2) the person is lawfully present in or on private property that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by another person, if the person has the consent of the owner to have the handgun on the premises, is attending a firearms related event, or is receiving firearms related services; (3) the person is lawfully present in a vehicle, that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by another person; (4) the person is carrying the handgun at a shooting range, while attending a firearms instructional course, or while engaged in a legal hunting activity; or (5) the handgun is unloaded and securely wrapped. (Current law provides that a person who does not possess a valid handgun license may not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person's body unless the person: (1) is in the person's dwelling or fixed place of business or on the person's property; or (2) is carrying the handgun unloaded and in a secure wrapper from the place where the handgun was purchased to the person's dwelling or fixed place of business, between a handgun repair shop and the person's dwelling or fixed place of business, or from one dwelling or fixed place of business to another.)



This one part could be fought
Specifies that a person who has been convicted of domestic battery may not possess or carry a handgun unless the person's right to possess a firearm has been restored by a court.
Current Status:
Law Enacted

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/03/dismissal_of_gun-rights_suit_u.html news to refliction of

The Constitutional functionality or right to restrain the A rights like one being armed by the courts to bear arms the common sence point as I understand such would be at the point of when your taken in to costitudy jailed after witch point of being jailed & convicted and released the return of the fire arms should be a given. Would it not be direct judiciary contempt constitutional contempt of the oath of the Elected leadership of the league of common defense and or appointed to so Hold what is rightfully ones owner ship. From what I have read from the days of the old west and still on the Books, when you was released from jail not only did you get your fire arms so back if in fact it was One then coud so buy one to so repleace such as well you was to be given a gold piece and so a horse so one would not be defense less & destitute vagrant.

Don't let your elected & or appointed ban your rights here is how to put a very short chain on Obama anti 2nd fan Club


If you have the fortitude you FIGHT THE ELECTED POWERS OF THE LEAGUE OF COMMON DEFENSE YOUR SELF STUDY WHAT IS KNOWN AS? Propia Persona {Pro Se} , It is unconstitutional or direct constitutional contempt for the Elected to so disarm you Seek to understand the difference between the views of the paid common defense and Militia Reserve. Study the history of Writ of Mandamus & The Dick AcT 1902-1903 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654




study this to file such Civil Tort notices to file suits Pro Se Notice: The respondent in this action is a non-lawyer and is moving forward in propia persona. Hanes v. Kerner (92 S Ct 594) pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to? technicality; prose litigants" pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers
Case law for Pro Se , Jenkins v. McKeithen (456 US 411 421 (1969); Picking v. Penna Ry. Co (151 Fed 2nd 240); Pucket v. Cox (456 Fed 2nd 233); Haines v. Kerner, et.al. (429 F. 2d 71 (1972)); Conley v. Gibson? (355 US 41, 45-6 (1957)); Dioguardi v. During (139 F. 2d 774 (1948)).

Note Fight back for free in Indiana ,
, ARTICLE 1. Bill of Rights
Section 12. Openess of the courts, Speedy trial
Section 12. All courts shall be open; and every person, for injury done to him in his person, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law. Justice shall be administered freely, and without purchase; completely, and without denial; speedily, and without delay

Learn the history of The Civil rights Acts & or The Force Act 1833-1871 google on & {The Force Acts} --it is unconstitutional for officers of the states I e Elected & so appointed like Judges persons of the leadership of the league of the common defense to seek to deprive the rights of , you can submit Civil tort Claims, as such gives you the right to so hold your elected accountable in court Submit tort notice citing {wikipedia & Writ of Mandamus} Via U.S. Title 42 usc section 1983 , Learn the 7 Amendment & terms like compensatory damages for victims whose legal rights have been violated.


Note the only reason the Police, FBI etc or Paid Actors of? the League of Common defense of the United States can carry is because of the 2nd Amendment. Some cross studies of things to help you if you want to fight back Pro Se would be {H.R. 218}

These two bills are landmarks, a preemption bill that allows carry in City Halls, libraries, concert halls, government owned colleges, the capitol building, city parks, cities with no carry ordinances. Now the only places off limits are places expressly stated in state law, courthouses. Anywhere that houses or treats inmates, schools,


I think this can so be fought its Public land not so a matter of private owners that so could be viewed with the historical views of the 3rd Amendment You never know till you try! Can't never did anything


{and the state fairgrounds during the fair. }
On Friday, March 9, the Indiana General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to pass Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) and reaffirm law-abiding

Hoosiers’ civil liberties which were undermined by last year’s
state Supreme Court decision, Barnes v. State of Indiana.
http://www.in.gov/​​​​​​judiciary/opinions/p... , ​ ​ ​


SB 1 reverses an activist court decision and restores self-defense laws to what they were prior to the Barnes decision. SB 1 passed the House on a bipartisan vote of 67-26 and the Senate on a vote of 38-12.
SB 1 is currently pending consideration by Governor Mitch Daniels, so it’s vital that he hear from every freedom loving person in Indiana who supports this common-sense legislation, which simply restores their Fourth Amendment rights.
Unfortunately, opponents of this legislation are intentionally spreading false information about SB 1 in an attempt to kill this critical legislation. In addition, they are trying to flood the Governor’s office with emails and phone calls in order to convince him to veto the bill. The Governor’s office needs to hear your support for SB 1 today!
Please contact Governor Daniels immediately and respectfully urge him to sign SB 1 into law! You can email the governor by clicking here or call his office at 317-232-4567.


SB1 has passed and law

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/SE/SE0001.1.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Second Regular Session 117th General Assembly (2012)


PRINTING CODE. Amendments: Whenever an existing statute (or a section of the Indiana Constitution) is being amended, the text of the existing provision will appear in this style type, additions will appear in this style type, and deletions will appear in this style type.
Additions: Whenever a new statutory provision is being enacted (or a new constitutional provision adopted), the text of the new provision will appear in this style type. Also, the word NEW will appear in that style type in the introductory clause of each SECTION that adds a new provision to the Indiana Code or the Indiana Constitution.
Conflict reconciliation: Text in a statute in this style type or this style type reconciles conflicts between statutes enacted by the 2011 Regular Session of the General Assembly.







SENATE ENROLLED ACT No. 1




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning criminal law and procedure.


Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:




SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2, AS AMENDED BY P.L.189-2006, SECTION 1, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE]: Sec. 2. (a) In enacting this section, the general assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state to recognize the unique character of a citizen's home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant. By reaffirming the long standing right of a citizen to protect his or her home against unlawful intrusion, however, the general assembly does not intend to diminish in any way the other robust self defense rights that citizens of this state have always enjoyed. Accordingly, the general assembly also finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime. The purpose of this section is to provide the citizens of this state with a lawful means of carrying out this policy.
(b) As used in this section, "public servant" means a person described in IC 35-41-1-17, IC 35-31.5-2-129, or IC 35-31.5-2-185.
(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.
However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) (d) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another any other person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) (e) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another any other person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a). (c).
(d) (f) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another any other person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) (g) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b) and (c), (c) through (e), a person is not justified in using force if:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) (h) Notwithstanding subsection (d), (f), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
(i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:
(1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;
(2) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or
(3) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.
(j) Notwithstanding subsection (i), a person is not justified in using force against a public servant if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes action by the public servant with intent to cause bodily injury to the public servant;
(3) the person has entered into combat with the public servant or is the initial aggressor, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the public servant the intent to do so and the public servant nevertheless continues
or threatens to continue unlawful action; or
(4) the person reasonably believes the public servant is:
(A) acting lawfully; or
(B) engaged in the lawful execution of the public servant's official duties.
(k) A person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless:
(1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is:
(A) acting unlawfully; or
(B) not engaged in the execution of the public servant's official duties; and
(2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.
SECTION 2. An emergency is declared for this act.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Undertand Your Rights of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest,

Subpoena vs Summons


Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting
officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This
premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the
case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the
officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally
accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with
very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right
to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What
may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter
in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been
committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without
affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction,
and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the
arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will
be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111.
491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v.
Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau,
241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.


“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right
to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by
force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense,
his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80;
Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.


“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an
arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by
the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private
individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State,
26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State,
43 Tex. 93, 903.



“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to
be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in
defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and
battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case,
the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer
and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v.
Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).


“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as
he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus
it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an
officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without
resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).



“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In
his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which
the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various
branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be
no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the
Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded,
‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by
human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in
extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous
injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford
University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the
case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.



As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable,
and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of
the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the
peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy
v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)


http://markmccoy.com/self-defense.html