2014 Legislative session

[Thor]

Greetings folks, and hello,

Long time reader...also known as a lurker...here. I finally decided I should sign up and post something useful. (I travel too way too much...I could be anywhere at any time and probably am).

I've been working with my Rep, Tim Harman, IN17 on a bill which he is currently trying to have read. HB 1401

HB 1401 Title: The Indiana Volunteers Program, Authored by Rep Tim Harman, IN 17.

Establishes the Indiana Volunteers Program consisting of IN residents who have demonstrated a proficiency in the use of weapons to assist the adjutant general in the protection in IN during emergencies.

Establishes the Citizen Marksmanship and Firearms Proficiency Program to (1) foster citizen involvement in the shooting sports; (2) recommend training courses for citizens to be involved in the shooting sports; (3) foster defense training exercises.

Requires the governor annually to proclaim a “Citizens Range and Firearms Safety Day” for the promotion of the proficiency program.

This bill has been submitted to the Veterans Affairs and Public Safety committee. It needs to be read in the committee so it can proceed to a summer study group to identify fiscal issues then be voted on in the next legislative session.

The committee chair is Rep Randall Frye, e-mail h67@iga.in.gov

Phone calls supporting the reading of this bill can be directed to (800) 382-9841

This is a rebirth of the original minuteman program as first outlined in the Legal Code of 1641. It directly supports both the Second Amendment of the US Constitution as well as Article 12, Section 1 of the Indiana Constitution which states: "A militia shall be provided ans shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or this state."

Please help us spread the word! This is a short session of our state legislature as the activity on this thread shows you clearly know.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Hello, welcome, and thanks for joining up!

i read your post and I'm a little confused. What I'm reading seems to be creating an armed force answerable to a gov't official but people are only eligible to join if they submit to some arbitrary standard of "proficiency".

What really has me confused, though, is "why?"

A traditional militia selected their own officers, plus, all of us of those ages are already in the militia.

I don't mean to disparage your effort, but rather I'd like to better understand your intention. 'Splain, please?

Blessings,
Bill

Greetings folks, and hello,

Long time reader...also known as a lurker...here. I finally decided I should sign up and post something useful. (I travel too way too much...I could be anywhere at any time and probably am).

I've been working with my Rep, Tim Harman, IN17 on a bill which he is currently trying to have read. HB 1401

HB 1401 Title: The Indiana Volunteers Program, Authored by Rep Tim Harman, IN 17.

Establishes the Indiana Volunteers Program consisting of IN residents who have demonstrated a proficiency in the use of weapons to assist the adjutant general in the protection in IN during emergencies.

Establishes the Citizen Marksmanship and Firearms Proficiency Program to (1) foster citizen involvement in the shooting sports; (2) recommend training courses for citizens to be involved in the shooting sports; (3) foster defense training exercises.

Requires the governor annually to proclaim a “Citizens Range and Firearms Safety Day” for the promotion of the proficiency program.

This bill has been submitted to the Veterans Affairs and Public Safety committee. It needs to be read in the committee so it can proceed to a summer study group to identify fiscal issues then be voted on in the next legislative session.

The committee chair is Rep Randall Frye, e-mail h67@iga.in.gov

Phone calls supporting the reading of this bill can be directed to (800) 382-9841

This is a rebirth of the original minuteman program as first outlined in the Legal Code of 1641. It directly supports both the Second Amendment of the US Constitution as well as Article 12, Section 1 of the Indiana Constitution which states: "A militia shall be provided ans shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or this state."

Please help us spread the word! This is a short session of our state legislature as the activity on this thread shows you clearly know.

 

[lonehoosier]

This may or may not help you BoR

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...mendment/329855-please-support-hb-1401-a.html

 

[Thor]

Indiana General Assembly - 2014 Session

Here's a link to the legislation.

 

[Thor]

Hello, welcome, and thanks for joining up!

i read your post and I'm a little confused. What I'm reading seems to be creating an armed force answerable to a gov't official but people are only eligible to join if they submit to some arbitrary standard of "proficiency".

What really has me confused, though, is "why?"

A traditional militia selected their own officers, plus, all of us of those ages are already in the militia.

I don't mean to disparage your effort, but rather I'd like to better understand your intention. 'Splain, please?

Blessings,
Bill

Let my try this again...I got logged out, may too wordy or somesuch.

At any rate, when I initially proposed this legislation it was with the Citizen's Marksmanship Program as the primary driver. The Volunteers were an optional level of activity after the fact. The volunteer's have always fallen under the adjutant general when called up, other than that the program was administered locally. You'll see in the legislation (that I linked to quick before I lost all my thoughts again!) that the requirements are really not very dire. But there do need to be requirements or what's the point of training?

When you say all of this age are in the militia, are you thinking the IN militia according to the constitution? If so, then why not train? Why not identify who is willing and able to participate?

The Adjutant General is appointed by the Governor and swears his oath to the State. I think that should fit quite well with the Pledge you have as part of your signature. This group has no federal mission.

A lot of these questions may be answered in the summer study group. But I'd like to hear your thoughts.

 

[Thor]

This may or may not help you BoR QUOTE]

Is that because I am erudite or obscure? Or is that being redundant...

 

[JMoses]

Anything with "militia" attached to it is going to sink. JMO

 

[Thor]

Hello, welcome, and thanks for joining up!

i read your post and I'm a little confused. What I'm reading seems to be creating an armed force answerable to a gov't official but people are only eligible to join if they submit to some arbitrary standard of "proficiency".

What really has me confused, though, is "why?"

A traditional militia selected their own officers, plus, all of us of those ages are already in the militia.

I don't mean to disparage your effort, but rather I'd like to better understand your intention. 'Splain, please?

Blessings,
Bill

This time I was 'clever' enough to copy my post before I lost it...obviously too wordy.

As to the why....why not? Is it not the responsibility of the State and the Citizens to provide this capability? I know that it has been ignored for many years, but a return to states rights and states responsibilities seems in order.

This from the bill.

Chapter 21. Citizen Marksmanship and Firearms Proficiency Program
Sec. 1. This chapter shall be implemented and construed consistently with the following:
(1) The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which 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.".
(2) Article 12, Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana, which states: "A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.".
Sec. 2. As used in this chapter, "program" refers to the citizen marksmanship and firearms proficiency program established by section 3 of this chapter.

Sec. 3. The citizen marksmanship and firearms proficiency program is established.
Sec. 4. The adjutant general shall administer the program.
Sec. 5. (a) The program shall do the following:
(1) Foster citizen involvement in shooting sports.
(2) Recommend training courses for citizens to be involved in shooting sports.
(3) Foster defense training exercises.
(b) Training promoted by the program may use law enforcement and military expertise and facilities where appropriate as determined by the adjutant general and relevant law enforcement authorities.
Sec. 6. The governor annually shall proclaim a "Citizens Range and Firearms Safety Day" for the promotion of the program.

 

[Thor]

Anything with "militia" attached to it is going to sink. JMO

Note the direct quote from the IN Constitution..."A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen..."

To change the language to meet current PC guidelines would require changing the constitution. I don't think the legislators will be confused.

 

[JMoses]

I know what it says, I'm just saying, there's too much negative stigma with the word "militia" for that to pass. JMO

 

[Thor]

I know what it says, I'm just saying, there's too much negative stigma with the word "militia" for that to pass. JMO

I would say in DC yes, in Indianapolis no. But at any rate, it quotes the constitution while creating the Volunteers, not the IN Militia. The militia already exists in law through the constitution, the volunteers are a way to organize and train it.

 

[Trigger Time]

I don't see the point

 

[JMoses]

^^^
I agree, there is NO point in it.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Sorry, that earlier post was sent from my phone, from the front of an ambulance. Here are some thoughts I had about this:

The logic is sound for the existence of this group. It will be denigrated as "wannabes" and I'm sure you can already hear the same thing I can, [noparse]<whine>"That's what the police are for!"</whine>[/noparse]

It will still be a reactive rather than proactive force. The Guard already does disaster mediation, not that more good help is ever a bad thing. I'm not sure how many schools would call on these guys when 911 is so much faster and more familiar. Further, all of us are already in "the militia", so what would this group be?

Add to this the fact that training and certification (especially the latter,) "puts you on a list", as does being under the command/directive of a state official, and sadly, I see big problems. Do not think from the sound of this that I'm against the idea. I like it, and I'd like to see it come to fruition. I just think the hurdles in the way are considerable.

On the positive side, if done correctly, these volunteers could be anyone, quietly, calmly present, just as a cop might happen to be in a mall when a shooter goes active, ref: Trolley Square in AZ a few years ago. This is more "boots on the ground", done on the cheap, since they don't have to be paid.

Individually speaking, it's free training, maybe free ammo to that end, and more ability to exercise one's rights (not that membership in a specific group should ever be required for that, and the question then is begged of "are they rights at all when they require some certification to be permitted to exercise them?)



Again... I do like the basic idea. In this day and age, to be honest, no one is going to jump to embrace the idea of "a bunch of gun-toters runnin' around th' schools!" without some stamp of "authority" on them, which is sad commentary on the mindset of Americans today. There was a time that we as individuals were self-reliant and formed into communities that were likewise self-reliant. The measure of a man was the man himself, and his word was his bond. Today, it seems only someone else can provide that "bond".

Maybe having individuals around and visible who stand up, set a good example, and are again, self-reliant, will start the ball rolling toward others following that good example. I hold hope, anyway.

I'd like to remind those who have voiced negative opinions that while the original iteration of the militia (or volunteers, or whatever name we apply to them) did, as I said, select their own officers, they also did train together regularly. Those of you who've been to an Appleseed will remember the story of Capt. Isaac Davis, of Acton, as well as Punkatasset Hill, outside Concord. The latter was the training ground the men of Concord used. The former held regular training exercises on his own land. While times do change, I am of the opinion that training is a good thing. I think we all agree on that. Where I'm not so enthusiastic about this idea is in the idea that to become a recognized member of something we supposedly are already members of, we have to measure up to some standard. We have members, some in this very thread, who have received some excellent training from Uncle Sam, and they should be able to attest to the fact that continuing to hone your skills improves them while neglecting them dulls them. In no way am I saying that everyone should therefore be required by some outside authority to meet on someone else's schedule to achieve this, nor do I believe that someone else's proficiency standard should be the gauge by which we measure our ability to exercise our rights. Further, if someone were to join this new group, it would be on a voluntary basis, not mandatory. Along with that thought, however, I have to note my awareness of the similarity to last year's "enhanced LTCH", which also would have been voluntary.... until it supplanted the current LTCH. That is, I can see at least two scenarios that I don't think would be beneficial to liberty: In one, the "trained" volunteers would be defined as the "new" militia that the state Constitution requires, while in the other, "so few have signed up to be part of this group that it is obvious the people have chosen to abolish it." (yes, I know that would take a Constitutional amendment, but I can also see the media pushing that. )

At the end of all of this, I'm left with favorable and unfavorable opinions of this idea. I like the idea of tax incentives for training that Kirk has proposed and I like the idea of people being trained. I don't favor any mandate on the people to complete required prerequisites to exercise their rights, however, whether we're speaking of a "free speech zone" or a "press pass" or a "public gathering/parade permit", or this case, required training to be able to own or use a gun, which is another place I could see this being perverted to take us.

I'm not giving an opinion on whether this is good or bad. I'm hashing out thoughts, which I'll be considering for a while before I come down on it either way on it. Others will, of course, give their opinions, and that's one of the things I love about this board: We can all give opinions that bind only ourselves. We can also do that with respect for others' opinions that may not be identical.

(I said we CAN, I didn't say we always DO, though that's one I will say I think we SHOULD.)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Thor]

BoR Said: "or this case, required training to be able to own or use a gun, which is another place I could see this being perverted to take us."

This bill does nothing to impact your right to own or use a weapon, all it does is provide a cadre of people you know are already trained. It's not limiting anyone's ability to serve the state Militia if need ever arises for a full mobilization; it just provides a way to access the group you'd call first.

The existence of the IN Volunteers made IN the ONLY State to be able to mobilize and answer the call for the Spanish American War...that war was so short everybody else was still going What? Where? and it was over.

It does ask that members of the Volunteers purchase a weapon, your choice, chambered in a caliber that the AG recommends. That way you don't end up showing up with a thousand differently chambered weapons. I would recommend that he chose one that wouldn't be scoffed at if you went deer hunting with it.

 

[Thor]

Sorry, that earlier post was sent from my phone, from the front of an ambulance. Here are some thoughts I had about this:

The logic is sound for the existence of this group. It will be denigrated as "wannabes" and I'm sure you can already hear the same thing I can, [noparse]<whine>"That's what the police are for!"</whine>[/noparse]

It will still be a reactive rather than proactive force. The Guard already does disaster mediation, not that more good help is ever a bad thing. I'm not sure how many schools would call on these guys when 911 is so much faster and more familiar. Further, all of us are already in "the militia", so what would this group be?

Add to this the fact that training and certification (especially the latter,) "puts you on a list", as does being under the command/directive of a state official, and sadly, I see big problems. Do not think from the sound of this that I'm against the idea. I like it, and I'd like to see it come to fruition. I just think the hurdles in the way are considerable.

On the positive side, if done correctly, these volunteers could be anyone, quietly, calmly present, just as a cop might happen to be in a mall when a shooter goes active, ref: Trolley Square in AZ a few years ago. This is more "boots on the ground", done on the cheap, since they don't have to be paid.

Individually speaking, it's free training, maybe free ammo to that end, and more ability to exercise one's rights (not that membership in a specific group should ever be required for that, and the question then is begged of "are they rights at all when they require some certification to be permitted to exercise them?)



Again... I do like the basic idea. In this day and age, to be honest, no one is going to jump to embrace the idea of "a bunch of gun-toters runnin' around th' schools!" without some stamp of "authority" on them, which is sad commentary on the mindset of Americans today. There was a time that we as individuals were self-reliant and formed into communities that were likewise self-reliant. The measure of a man was the man himself, and his word was his bond. Today, it seems only someone else can provide that "bond".

Maybe having individuals around and visible who stand up, set a good example, and are again, self-reliant, will start the ball rolling toward others following that good example. I hold hope, anyway.

I'd like to remind those who have voiced negative opinions that while the original iteration of the militia (or volunteers, or whatever name we apply to them) did, as I said, select their own officers, they also did train together regularly. Those of you who've been to an Appleseed will remember the story of Capt. Isaac Davis, of Acton, as well as Punkatasset Hill, outside Concord. The latter was the training ground the men of Concord used. The former held regular training exercises on his own land. While times do change, I am of the opinion that training is a good thing. I think we all agree on that. Where I'm not so enthusiastic about this idea is in the idea that to become a recognized member of something we supposedly are already members of, we have to measure up to some standard. We have members, some in this very thread, who have received some excellent training from Uncle Sam, and they should be able to attest to the fact that continuing to hone your skills improves them while neglecting them dulls them. In no way am I saying that everyone should therefore be required by some outside authority to meet on someone else's schedule to achieve this, nor do I believe that someone else's proficiency standard should be the gauge by which we measure our ability to exercise our rights. Further, if someone were to join this new group, it would be on a voluntary basis, not mandatory. Along with that thought, however, I have to note my awareness of the similarity to last year's "enhanced LTCH", which also would have been voluntary.... until it supplanted the current LTCH. That is, I can see at least two scenarios that I don't think would be beneficial to liberty: In one, the "trained" volunteers would be defined as the "new" militia that the state Constitution requires, while in the other, "so few have signed up to be part of this group that it is obvious the people have chosen to abolish it." (yes, I know that would take a Constitutional amendment, but I can also see the media pushing that. )

At the end of all of this, I'm left with favorable and unfavorable opinions of this idea. I like the idea of tax incentives for training that Kirk has proposed and I like the idea of people being trained. I don't favor any mandate on the people to complete required prerequisites to exercise their rights, however, whether we're speaking of a "free speech zone" or a "press pass" or a "public gathering/parade permit", or this case, required training to be able to own or use a gun, which is another place I could see this being perverted to take us.

I'm not giving an opinion on whether this is good or bad. I'm hashing out thoughts, which I'll be considering for a while before I come down on it either way on it. Others will, of course, give their opinions, and that's one of the things I love about this board: We can all give opinions that bind only ourselves. We can also do that with respect for others' opinions that may not be identical.

(I said we CAN, I didn't say we always DO, though that's one I will say I think we SHOULD.)

Blessings,
Bill

Thank you for that thoughtful response. I (mistakenly) assume that everyone else knows the value of organized training...but that's been my job for over 30 years and still is. I will put together an argument for training in a separate response...in something that I can cut and paste into as I seem to take an inordinate (for the web) amount of time to generate a response. And as with you, all of my media is anti-social. My facebook is when I fall asleep reading, my twitter are the birds outside the library window, my kindle is in the fireplace...

 

[Thor]

As an upfront, I’m former Army, and AF, with Navy cross training. I’m retired and still work in the training community, ostensibly with the Air National Guard. That’s probably more personal information than I should give out but might be good for the discussion...I like to say I had the perfect Navy tour, one week flying off the Teddy Roosevelt in the Caribbean, and the weather was perfect. It’s a really big boat...but a really small airfield. When I retired I wanted to move someplace I could live with so I looked at the state politics and read the constitutions of our prospective locales. I decided IN was much like TX but without all the big hats and shouting. The only rust belt state that had previously been right to work and is again. It has the added advantage of being South of the really bad winters and North of the fire ant and killer bee line.

In the AF, which is no different training wise than any other service, training has been recognized to be a ‘force multiplier’, without training which equates to experience you are known as a casualty...or in an operation short of war, an impediment. You will be in the way because you will need to be told specifically what to do every step of the way and you’ll be wasting the time of those who do know what to do. Or worse, arguing about it.

It has been ever so, here are some examples from the air since the development of that force is easily seen in our time, though going back to the Greeks or Romans, possibly even the Minoan’s would be just as apropos while requiring a bit more of a treatise.

“Acting as an observer is certainly not a bad training, particularly for a chasing airman.” Her Rittmeister Baron Manfred von Richthofen, from “The Red Fighter Pilot”, March 1917.

“No one ever sees anything at all during the first hour in the air owing to the hopeless confusion in his mind caused by the novel aspect of everything.” General Brancker speech to British Aeronautical Society, 1916.

Major Lufbery debriefing Capt Rickenbacker after his first flight over the lines during WWI,
“Major Lufbery broke into the conversation and asked us what we had seen.” “We both repeated as easily as we could that we hadn’t seen any other airplanes in the sky.” “Just what I expected...one formation of five Spads crossed under us before we passed the lines and another flight of five Spads went by about fifteen minutes later and you didn’t see them, although neither one of them was more than five hundred yards away...then there were four German Albatross two miles ahead of us when we turned back and another enemy two-seater nearer us than that...” “You must learn to look about a bit when you get in enemy lines.” “Fighting the Flying Circus” 1919.

In WWII, we did not blind our enemies with technological superiority, nor did we wield an advantage in numbers on the battlefield. Our enemies were fighting a defensive war (at this point) with the advantage of being able to choose their field of battle.

During the Battle of the Philippine Sea, June 1944, the Japanese (after having had their way with inexperienced Army AF and Navy pilots) experienced a 64-0 loss ratio because most of their experienced pilots had already been lost and our training was improving exponentially. This became popularly known as the Mariana Turkey Shoot.

In January 1945, on New Year’s Day, the Luftwaffe launched Operation Bodenplatte, their largest operation of the war. They expected the allies to be hung-over and asleep. Mostly they were right, but they could no longer maintain the quality of training that had benefited them early in the war. There was only one flight airborne on the allies side when the operation kicked off, and they were low on fuel and returning to base. Yet the tally at the end of the day was 10 killed and 16 shot down uninjured for the allies verses 143 killed or missing, 70 shot down and captured, and 21 wounded for the Germans...this in an operation in which they achieved complete tactical surprise. A 9 to 1 kill ratio.

In Korea, we maintained a 10-1 kill ratio over the North, even though they were flying an arguably better aircraft (MiG-15) than our F-80 and F-86 fighters. This was because we engaged with experienced pilots (from WWII) and they were providing training for the new pilots. The NK and their Russian trainers could not match us for experience.

When we entered into Vietnam, those pilots and their training had ostensibly disappeared. At the beginning of this ‘Peace Keeping Action’ we experienced a 2-1 kill ration with better aircraft and superior weapons systems. We had to ask ourselves why? The USN sponsored the Report of the Air-to-Air Missile System Capability Review, which became known as the “Ault Report” Nov. 1968. It determined that training readiness was the key to improving the survivability of our pilots. It found that most of the aircrews that were new to battle were employing their weapons systems in ways that did not lead to success. It confirmed the fact that improved aircrew performance was possible through more realistic training. This report led to the creation of “Top Gun” in the Navy and “Red Flag” in the AF. At the end of the ‘Action’ the ratio had returned to what was experienced in WWII and Korea, 10 to 1.

So, if we called up the IN Militia today how would we fare?

Here are some other quotes from folks who feel the same way:

The Defense Science Board Task Force on Training Superiority and Training Surprise, Jan. 2001
“In the last decade we surprised not only others but ourselves with our warfare proficiency. There is evidence that the culture of our first training revolution is itself trainable. A new enemy might also capitalize on the new training revolution. Training Superiority is ours to lose and for others to gain.”

QDR – Sept 30, 2001
The uniquely American Superiority in training is eroding, particularly as evident in the aging infrastructure and instrumentation of U.S. training ranges.

Defense Planning Document 2004-2009
Comprehensive and realistic combat training, is an asymmetric advantage for US military forces that contributes more to effective combat power than any single new system.

But have we remembered this lesson?

Cope India ‘04 – “ the US F-15C’s were defeated more than 90% of the time…”
-- Feb 26 House Appropriations Subcommittee
“Another surprise was the quality of training the Indian Pilots received. USAF fighter pilots log about 250 flight hours a year. The Indian fighter pilots said they’ve been getting as many as 300 flying hours per year and that the majority of those hours was spent in full-up training.
In most USAF aerial combat training, the service has “dumbed down” adversarial equipment and training to simulate what it believed to be the level of enemy competence.”
-- Air Force Magazine, July 2004 vol 87 no. 7

I could go on...but let’s return to the ground.

When Gen Pershing went to Europe in preparation for deploying an American force during WWI, he watched the operations of the allies. He saw that they had abandoned open warfare for a stalemate in the trenches. He witnessed their entire lack of ability to use their rifles. At one point he watched two French soldiers chasing a German who had snuck up to their line across no man’s land. After empting their rifles in his general direction the switched to throwing hand grenades at him. Pershing wired home to make sure that marksmanship was emphasized. From his “My Experiences in the Great War”.

Herbert W. McBride, in his excellent “A Riflemen Went to War” published in 1930 outlined how he, and IN Volunteer, later NG Officer and marksmanship competitor at Camp Perry, went to WWI as part of the Canadian 21[SUP]st[/SUP]. He said, in many colorful and amusing ways, that training for marksmanship should be the primary consideration for deploying troops as nothing can really prepare you for war but everything else you can learn while you’re there.

Sure, we can clean the clocks of a few backwater nations when the need arises, but without adequately trained troops we will end up learning a lot painful lessons over again when we are facing something known as a regional competitor, who you might ask? Check the labels in almost everything sold at Walmart.

So, why this initiative in Indiana?

Without training we are just targets, with training we are a force to be reckoned with. Without a list of who is trained and willing the Constitutional requirement means nothing.

To go back to one of the points BoR was making and expand a bit. BoR said: ”On the positive side, if done correctly, these volunteers could be anyone, quietly, calmly present, just as a cop might happen to be in a mall when a shooter goes active, ref: Trolley Square in AZ a few years ago. This is more "boots on the ground", done on the cheap, since they don't have to be paid.”

If you were a drug cartel leader and you wanted to expand your operations would you come to IN where possibly every single citizen owned and new how to use a weapon, or would you go to IL where it was frowned upon?

If you were a terrorist and wanted to take over a mall and kill folks what state would you be looking at? Would you want to come to IN where every potential target was also a potentially trained rifleman?

I believe if we are going to meet even the basics of the requirements spelled out in the IN Constitution then it is irresponsible, unconscionable even, to not have some modicum of training identified. In the end at least those who are ready can train those who are not.

 

[Thor]

BoR said: -snip- Add to this the fact that training and certification (especially the latter,) "puts you on a list", as does being under the command/directive of a state official, and sadly, I see big problems. -snip-

I agree but if we don't trust the federal monstrosity, and we no long trust the State...where does that leave us exactly? Much like Nullification efforts and a Convention of the States I think I'm willing to take these last steps. They are reasonable actions before unreasonable actions become necessary.

 

[Thor]

BoR Said, -snip- The logic is sound for the existence of this group. It will be denigrated as "wannabes" and I'm sure you can already hear the same thing I can, <whine>"That's what the police are for!"</whine>" -snip-

HA! You are right...let them whine. The IN Volunteers may not be able to operate at the level of the 'paid' National Guard but they'll be a lot more effective than joe blow from state X that has zip for training.

And as you know, when seconds count the police are minutes away.

Always having in the back of the mind of a criminal that response to their loserdome may be moments away may be enough to make them look elsewhere.

 

[Thor]

From BoR: -snip- We have members, some in this very thread, who have received some excellent training from Uncle Sam, -snip-

That's why the bill says that former training may be accepted. We're still working on the details, any help is appreciated.