The right to bear arms was established as an understood law, prior to 2nd amendment rooted in the "Castle Doctrine" 1600's

What is the definition of Castle Doctrine?

A castle doctrine, also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law, is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode or any legally occupied place (for example, a vehicle or home) as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting one, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to ...

The Constitution

The “castle doctrine,” which originates in the early 1600s. This was the doctrine that you did not have to retreat from an attack if you were in your home, because as the old adage says, a man’s house is his castle.

the Castle Doctrine first began as a common law theory. This means that it wasn’t a written law, but rather an understanding everyone had of the rule. Under common law, a person could use deadly force to defend their home

The 2nd Amendment further established as LAW.

Right to Bear Arms

Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791. The first 10 amendments form the Bill of Rights

2nd Amendment states no one or nothing can abridge this right 

The Castle Doctrine

Do You Know What the Castle Doctrine Is? from Rick Green on Vimeo.

A castle doctrine, also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law, is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode or any legally occupied place (for example, a vehicle or home) as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting one, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend oneself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used.^[1] The term is most commonly used in the United States, though many other countries (see below) invoke comparable principles in their laws.

Depending on the location, a person may have a duty to retreat to avoid violence if one can reasonably do so. Castle doctrines lessen the duty to retreat when an individual is assaulted within one's own home. Deadly force may either be justified, the burdens of production and proof for charges impeded, or an affirmative defense against criminal homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another".^[1] The castle doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which may be incorporated in some form in many jurisdictions. Castle doctrines may not provide civil immunity, such as from wrongful death suits, which have a much lower burden of proof.

Justifiable homicide^[2] in self-defense which happens to occur inside one's home is distinct, as a matter of law, from castle doctrine because the mere occurrence of trespassing—and occasionally a subjective requirement of fear—is sufficient to invoke the castle doctrine, the burden of proof of fact is much less challenging than that of justifying a homicide in self-defense. With justifiable homicide in self-defense, one generally must objectively prove to a trier of fact, against all reasonable doubt, the intent in the intruder's mind to commit violence or a felony. It would be a misconception of law to infer that because a state has a justifiable homicide in self-defense provision pertaining to one's domicile, it has a castle doctrine protecting the estate and exonerating any duty whatsoever to retreat therefrom. The doctrine can be misused as a pretext for extrajudicial punishment in private spaces. 

Read more HERE 

Trump vetoes $740B NDAA defense bill, calls it ‘gift to China and Russia’

President Donald Trump vetoed the annual defense bill on Wednesday after repeated vows due to Congress’ inaction on two issues – military base renaming and social media protections – that he demanded.

Trump announced his veto in a letter to the House of Representatives, saying, “Unfortunately, the Act fails to include critical national security measures, includes provisions that fail to respect our veterans and our military’s history, and contradicts efforts by my Administration to put America first in our national security and foreign policy actions.  It is a ‘gift’ to China and Russia.”

A Senate vote of 84-13 approved the $740 billion bill on Dec. 11, exceeding the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. The vote follows the House of Representatives’ 335-78 vote – also a veto-proof majority – on Dec. 8.

Trump repeatedly said he would veto the defense bill because it failed to include a provision to repeal Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Section 230 codifies immunities for websites and web services to post or remove content.

A Senate vote of 84-13 approved the $740 billion bill on Dec. 11, exceeding the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. The vote follows the House of Representatives’ 335-78 vote – also a veto-proof majority – on Dec. 8.

Trump repeatedly said he would veto the defense bill because it failed to include a provision to repeal Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Section 230 codifies immunities for websites and web services to post or remove content.

Read more HERE 

On January 6th, Congress can reject all fraudulent Electoral College votes

Senator Tuberville might be the hitch pin

OTHER ON-GOING ACTIONS BY PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS LEGAL TEAM

There are still a number of cases that may soon make it to the United States Supreme Court for final adjudication and remedy. That process is far from being exhausted. As Attorney General William Barr has just resigned and Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen soon takes over, we are still eagerly anticipating potential criminal cases against those who fraudulently certified election results. Charges of treason against some should be seriously considered.

Also, this coming Friday, December 18th, is a very important date when Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe must submit a report pursuant to President Trump’s “Executive Order on Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election” issued on September 12th, 2018. It will undoubtedly identify and document China as primary perpetrator and Iran as secondary for having committed covert acts to change election results against Trump in favor of Biden. What action the President and Commander-in-Chief will take is something we must await. But you can rest assured that assertive action is forthcoming in the very near future!

CONGRESS PLAYS A CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE IN THIS PROCESS

You can easily find on the internet a PDF version of this entire document. What follows are pertinent excerpts that outline what will transpire January 6th on Capitol Hill

Counting Electoral Votes: An Overview of Procedures at the Joint Session, Including
Objections by Members of Congress

When the certificate or equivalent paper from each state or the District of Columbia is read, “the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any.” Any such objection must be presented in writing and must be signed by at least one Senator and one Representative. The objection “shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15 Counting electoral votes in Congress

When an objection, properly made in writing and endorsed by at least one Senator and one Representative, is received, each house is to meet and consider it separately.

The statute states, “No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.”

The joint session does not act on any objections that are made. Instead, the joint session is suspended, the Senate withdraws from the House chamber, and each house meets separately to debate the objection and vote whether, based on the objection, to count the vote or votes in question.

Both houses must vote separately to agree to the objection by simple majority. Otherwise, the objection fails and the vote or votes are counted. (3 U.S.C. §15 provides that “the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes.”)

Both houses used roll call votes to decide the question.

Section 17 lays out procedures for each house to follow when debating and voting on an objection. These procedures limit debate on the objection to not more than two hours, during which each Member may speak only once and for not more than five minutes. Then “it shall be the duty of the presiding officer of each House to put the main question without further debate.”

Congress thought it might, as grounds for an objection, question and look into the lawfulness of the certification under state law.

The question of which state authority is “the lawful tribunal of such State” to make the decision (and thus the acceptance of those electors’ votes) shall be decided only upon the concurrent agreement of both houses “supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law.”

If there is no determination by a state authority of the question of which slate was lawfully appointed, then the two chambers must agree concurrently to accept the votes of one set of electors; but the two chambers may also concurrently agree not to accept the votes of electors from that state.

When the two houses disagree, then the statute states that the votes of the electors whose appointment was certified by the governor of the state shall be counted.

* When there is only ONE determination by the state made in a TIMELY fashion under the state’s election contest law and procedures (even when there are two or more lists or slates of electors presented before Congress), then Congress shall accept that state determination.

[* This is why it is crucially important that the contested states filed alternate slates of electors pledged to Donald Trump by the “Safe Harbor” deadline of December 8th.]

In the event that no candidate has received a majority of the electoral votes for President, the election is ultimately to be decided by the House of Representatives in which the names of the three candidates receiving the most electoral votes for President are considered by the House, with each state having one vote.

Read More HERE 

Pelosi and Schumer Agree to Trump’s Demand for $2,000 Stimulus Checks

 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) signaled that they are open to increasing the amount for the stimulus checks after President Donald Trump threatened to veto the COVID relief bill unless the direct payment was increased to $2,000 per individual.

“Republicans repeatedly refused to say what amount the President wanted for direct checks. At last, the President has agreed to $2,000—Democrats are ready to bring this to the Floor this week by unanimous consent. Let’s do it!” Pelosi wrote on Twitter on Tuesday.

“We spent months trying to secure $2,000 checks but Republicans blocked it. Trump needs to sign the bill to help people and keep the government open and we’re glad to pass more aid Americans need. Maybe Trump can finally make himself useful and get Republicans not to block it again,” Schumer wrote on Twitter shortly after Pelosi issued her message.

In a video message issued earlier on Tuesday, the president threatened to veto the $2.3 trillion omnibus spending and pandemic relief bill.

“Congress found plenty of money for foreign countries, lobbyists, and special interests,” the president said, “while sending the bare minimum to the American people who need it.”

“It wasn’t their fault. It was China’s fault.”

Read more HERE

More GOP Lawmakers Back Electoral College Challenge

 Another member of Congress has pledged to challenge the Electoral College vote submissions when the Joint Session of Congress meets Jan. 6, joining several others who said they will do so.

Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) wrote in a letter to Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) that “I intend to object to the certification of the Electoral College vote submissions on January 6th, and I respectfully ask you to stand with me.”

Reports have said that more than a dozen lawmakers met with President Donald Trump to discuss objecting to the certification of Joe Biden’s victory.

Read more HERE

Special Message from President Trump concerning Covid relief Bill, but is spent on Globalism