5479349

With the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to replace Antonin Scalia on the Surpeme Court, Second Amendment supporters can celebrate. That would be very premature.

The battle over the confirmation of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General is going to be a cakewalk compared to the fight over Gorsuch. You have some snowflakes on the Left crying about how this Supreme Court seat was stolen from Merrick Garland (conveniently ignoring that Joe Biden threatened to do the same in 1992, and Schumer made similar comments in 2008).

What do you expect when the fight is for all the marbles? In this case, Gorsuch is a likely fifth vote to uphold the ruling made by the District Court in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands that tossed a semi-auto ban and a number of other strict gun laws. Hes the fifth vote that secures the Heller ruling that recognized the Second Amendment as an individual right and which tossed out D.C.s handgun ban. The McDonald case, which extended the prohibition on banning handguns to the states, is also secure.

When Gorsuch is confirmed and that, folks, is gonna be one hell of a fight. Senator Chuck Schumer wants 60 votes for confirmation. I dont necessarily object to that popping off the nuke option now makes it easier to replace the next openings (potentially Ginsburg and Breyer) with reliable conservatives. The good news is that Gorsuch briefly hit the 60-vote threshold until Jeanne Shaheen flip-flopped. This is why Kelly Ayotte and Mark Kirk mattered, people. Better to have started from 54 to work your way to 60, than the present 52.

In short, we need eight Democrats to cross over and vote. And while there are a lot of Senate Democrats facing re-election in states Trump won, to win their primaries, they must show fealty to the activists, donors, and Party leadership. Who do you think provides the money for the DNC efforts on behalf of Heidi Heitkamp, Jon Tester, and Joe Donnelly? The same folks who also donate to the DNC efforts for Chuck Schumer and the most anti-gun members of the House and Senate. By the way, did Heitkamp, Tester, and Donnelly back Jeff Sessions as AG? No.

The good news, if anything, is that the anti-Second Amendment forces and the rest of the Left seem to have been unable to really reach beyond their base on the issue of guns. Furthermore, outside that issue, Trump has made some serious progress (notably in bring jobs in). If that continues over the next four years, we could see significant gains in the Senate and a second Trump term.

That is a big if, though. The one thing we have seen in the first weeks is that the Left isnt just going to roll over after losing the 2016 presidential election. If anything, they intend to fight as furiously as they can to take our rights, and they are going to be persistent about it. We will need to match that persistence and fury to keep our rights.

Continue reading here:

Will Sixty Senators Vote To Protect The Second Amendment? - Daily Caller

Mark L. Hopkins More Content Now

This preoccupation with the Second Amendment began a few months back when I wrote a column entitled Guns dont kill people. Really? The amount of interest in that topic directed me to do additional research on the subject and every avenue pointed back to the key question. Why did we need a militia/gun amendment added to the Constitution? As is true with most momentous decisions in the life of our country, to fully understand why something was done we must study the times in which such decisions were made. The why of the Second Amendment in the 1780s is very different from answering that same question in 2017. The United States was a very different country in the years following the Revolution than it is today. When President Washington first took office two key challenges faced him and the leadership in congress. First, the Revolutionary War had concluded just eight years before. England had been defeated on our shores and withdrew their troops. However, that didnt make us the strongest nation on the globe. England still had the strongest combination of army and navy. They still controlled Canada, just a short trip up the Hudson River from New York City. In short, they were still a threat to us. At the conclusion of the war, General Washington and the leadership in Congress did not have the money to support a standing army. It was the consensus that the U.S. must make do with smaller, live-at-home militia units in the various states rather than a centralized army. Thus, it was their hope that the new country could be protected with a citizen army that was armed and ready to be called up at a moments notice. To make that work each military age male needed to be armed and ready if needed. Second, several citizen rebellions had occurred between the end of the war and the time of the passage of the new Constitution. Principal among these were the Shays Rebellion in Massachusetts and the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania. Without the creation of a local militia neither state had the firepower to protect the government or the people. In short, our young country did not have the money to support a standing army so adding the Second Amendment was for the expressed purpose of making sure that each state had the legal right to call men to arms. Just as important, it was necessary that those men were able to join the militia fully armed and ready to defend their state and their government. The contention from some that the framers of the Constitution adopted the Second Amendment because they wanted an armed population that could take down the U.S. government should it become tyrannical just has no credence in history. In past columns about the Second Amendment, we have established the historical context of the creation of the Second Amendment. The primary purpose was to create a legal foundation for a state militia, the forerunner of our National Guard. President Washington not only wrote letters to support such action but actually created his own militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania. Congress supported his action by creating The Militia Act, that allowed states to call up militia units to protect the government and the people as needed. Resources used for these columns on the Second Amendment came from His Excellency: George Washington by Joseph Ellis (2004), James Madisons arguments for a strong federal government in The Federalist Papers, (1777-78) and The Readers Companion to American History by John A. Garraty and Eric Foner, which tells the stories of Shays Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. If a reader missed the two earlier columns, contact me at presnet@presnet.net for copies. Dr. Mark L. Hopkins writes for More Content Now and Scripps Newspapers. He is past president of colleges and universities in four states and currently serves as executive director of a higher-education consulting service. You will find Hopkins latest book, Journey to Gettysburg, on Amazon.com. Contact him at presnet@presnet.net.

Read more:

Mark L. Hopkins: Why did the US Constitution need the Second Amendment? - Keyser Mineral Daily News Tribune

Proposals involving guns are always controversial (File photo) Proposals involving guns are always controversial (File photo)

LAKEVIEW, Ore. - A measure challenging gun regulations is popping up around the state. Since 2015, four counties have passed a measure known as the Second Amendment Preservation ordinance, and commissioners in Malheur, Union and Lake counties have heard the same measure in the past few weeks.

The ordinance is a reaction to the Oregon Firearms Safety Act, passed by the state Legislature in 2015, which requires background checks for transfers of firearms between private parties. These county ordinances allow sheriffs to ignore this law - which gun advocates see as unconstitutional.

But Ceasefire Oregon Executive Director Penny Okamoto said there's a fatal flaw in the measure.

"There's an Oregon firearms pre-emption law that states that counties, municipalities, cities actually can't make certain laws regarding certain aspects of firearm sales, ownership, storage," Okamoto said. "So these ordinances or resolutions really are largely very symbolic."

The legality of this ordinance is still in question.

Rob Taylor of Coos County is one of the chief petitioners for the Second Amendment Preservation ordinance. He said he wants Oregon to have what he called "sanctuary counties" for the Second Amendment.

"The same way Oregon has become a sanctuary state for immigration," he said.

While Okamoto and Taylor disagree over the measure, they both point to poor mental health services for Oregonians and the importance of addressing those shortfalls to prevent violence.

Taylor said Gov. Kate Brown's proposal to shut down a mental health hospital in Junction City could hurt the people it serves.

"It doesn't matter whether they get a gun or a car or a bomb. If they have those thoughts, they're going to act upon it," he said. "And so the best thing to do is to have places like mental hospitals so we can have people go and get those problems healed or cured."

Okamoto said one of the biggest concerns related to gun violence is suicide, which accounts for most of the violent deaths from guns.

"You can pass all these ordinances you want, but that's not really taking a look at the fact that a lot of people in these rural counties are using their guns to kill themselves," she said. "And that's an issue that really needs to be addressed."

Originally posted here:

Oregon counties' gun measures spark debate - KTVZ

Mark L. Hopkins More Content Now

This is the second in a series of columns that relate to the purpose of the Second Amendment and the gun rights issue that continues to fester in our society. The first column pointed out the strong desire on the part of the leadership of the country to have a strong federal government. The focus here is in the feeling of necessity in the leadership to have a means to enforce federal law and to protect the government from citizen rebellions. The Second Amendment became the law of the land in 1791. Prior to that Daniel Shays, a former captain in the Continental Army, became the leader of a citizens rebellion in Massachusetts in response to what Shays and other farmers believed were high taxes and a government that was unresponsive to their grievances. In January 1787, they raided the arsenal in Springfield, Massachusetts and continued their anti-government rebellions through the winter of that year. This was two years before the writing of the U.S. Bill of Rights with its all-important Second Amendment. Retired General George Washington was so upset by Shays Rebellion that he wrote three letters commenting on it. Excerpts from these letters follow: But for Gods sake tell me what is the cause of all these commotions. Do they proceed from licentiousness, British influence disseminated by Tories, or real grievances which admit of redress? In a second letter he worried that, Commotion of this sort, like snowballs, gather strength as they roll, if there is no opposition in the way to divide and crumble them. I am mortified beyond expression that in the moment of our acknowledged independence we should by our conduct verify the predictions of our transatlantic foe, and render ourselves ridiculous and contemptible in the eyes of all Europe. Later he wrote, If three years ago any person had told me that at this day I should see such a formidable rebellion against the laws and constitutions or our own making as now appears, I should have thought him a bedlamite, a fit subject for a mad house. Shays Rebellion was eventually put down when a group of wealthy merchants in Boston pooled their resources and created their own militia to quell the uprising. In the early 1790s, a second major rebellion began in Western Pennsylvania. It was called the Whiskey Rebellion and, again, was a revolt against taxes. Thus, the Second Amendment was written and signed into law in the shadow of these two major citizens rebellions. The U.S. Congress reacted to this second major rebellion by passing The Militia Act which gave teeth to the Second Amendment by requiring all military-age free adults to stand for service to enforce the laws of the Union, thereby insuring domestic tranquility. President Washington himself gave orders to form a militia of 13,000 men to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. His words later were ..this is how a well-regulated Militia should be used to serve the government in maintaining a strong security in each state, as the Second Amendment of The Bill of Rights intended. From the letters written by George Washington and the actions of Congress it is obvious that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to strengthen the Federal Government against rebellion and insurrection. It was not, as some contend, to equip the citizens to make war on the government. In fact, it was just the opposite. My first of the three gun rights columns focused on the desire of the U.S. leadership to have a strong central government and the means to protect that government from rebellion. In this column the focus has been on the like-minded efforts of both President George Washington and Congress to put teeth in the Second Amendment so security and an orderly society could be fostered. My third and final column on this subject will come next week.

Dr. Mark L. Hopkins writes for More Content Now and Scripps Newspapers. He is past president of colleges and universities in four states and currently serves as executive director of a higher-education consulting service. You will find Hopkins latest book, Journey to Gettysburg, on Amazon.com. Contact him at presnet@presnet.net.

The rest is here:

Mark L. Hopkins: The Second Amendment and Shays' Rebellion - Wicked Local Watertown

RAMSEY, N.J. Amidst threat of a lawsuit from the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, the Ramsey Borough Council Wednesday held off on adopting an ordinance that would prohibit firearms from being discharged at shooting ranges within the borough.

The council voted to table the ordinance until the next council meeting on Feb. 22.

We are in the process of obtaining a national law firm to represent the borough pro-bono in the event of litigation since the New Jersey Second Amendment Society has threatened the borough with costly and protracted litigation if we move forward with the amendment, Ramsey Mayor Deirdre Dillon told a packed meeting room.

The borough attorney advised the mayor and council to table to the ordinance until that law firm is retained, Dillon said.

The ordinance at issue, introduced last month, revises one currently on the books that prohibits the firing of any pistol, shotgun, rifle or other type of firearms anywhere in the borough, but exempts indoor and outdoor firing ranges.

The revisions to ban the use of firearms at shooting ranges as well were introduced after the borough received an application to create a 60,000-square-foot indoor firing range at the former Liberty Travel building on Spring Street. An application for the facility dubbed the Screaming Eagle Club is pending with the Ramsey Planning Board.

RELATED: With Firing Range Pending, Ramsey To Consider Tightening Gun Law

New Jersey Second Amendment Society President Alexander Roubian sent a letter to the mayor and council on Feb. 1, stating: Our legal team is currently preparing the necessary Complaint to file with the N.J. District Court in the event the Ordinance is passed; however we ask that the proposed ordinance be pulled from the agenda so we can work together on an amicable solution without the need for costly litigation.

Roubian, a graduate of Ramsey High School, addressed the mayor and council in person Wednesday. We are very confident that we have a very, very good case here, he said, warning prevailing parties will be recovering their legal fees.

It is a chance we are willing to take, Dillon responded.

A string of additional speakers took to the mic to voice their concerns about both safety and Second Amendment issues.

RELATED: Ramsey Residents Say 'No' To Proposed Indoor Shooting Range

We like the town the way it is, a bucolic beautiful town that is safe for our children, said Ramsey resident Ellen OKeefe.

Andrew Stravitz, of Allendale, pointed out that the Waldwick Pistol & Rifle Club has been a few miles away from Ramsey for about 50 years. In 50 years, zero injuries in the shooting range over there, he said.

Barbara Puccia, of Ramsey, said It only takes one, and one person only, that has bad intentions that can cause a tragedy in this town.

View post:

Second Amendment Group Threatens Lawsuit, Ramsey Tables Gun ... - Hackensack Daily Voice

A bill introduced in Tennessee on Wednesday would make it cheaper to buy a gun for one weekend of the year in that state, with a special tax-free event.

Surprisingly - a county Democratic official opposes the idea.

WJHL reports, State Rep. Dennis Powers, introduced House Bill 744 or Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday. The measure would remove the sales tax on guns and ammunition during the first weekend of September. The proposal is similar to the tax-free back-to-school holiday weekend Tennessee holds at the end of the summer.

Were ecstatic about it, it would be great for our business, Tri-Cities Gun Depot Co-Owner, Tommy Isaacs told WJHL.

Isaacs even said his shop would reduce prices for what hes calling back to school for hunters.

Nancy Fischman, Chair of the Washington County Democratic Party would like to see lawmakers focus on other issues.

Why doesnt he propose a sales tax holiday for groceries? You have to eat but you dont have to buy a gun, Fischman tells WJHL.

If the Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday, were passed - it would take effect this September, joining similar Second Amendment Sales Tax Holidays in Louisiana and Mississippi.

Thank you for supporting MRCTV! As a tax-deductible, charitable organization, we rely on the support of our readers to keep us running!Keep MRCTV going with your gift here!

Continue reading here:

Tenn. Considers 'Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday' - MRCTV (blog)

RAMSEY, N.J. Amidst threat of a lawsuit from the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, the Ramsey Borough Council Wednesday held off on adopting an ordinance that would prohibit firearms from being discharged at shooting ranges within the borough.

The council voted to table the ordinance until the next council meeting on Feb. 22.

We are in the process of obtaining a national law firm to represent the borough pro-bono in the event of litigation since the New Jersey Second Amendment Society has threatened the borough with costly and protracted litigation if we move forward with the amendment, Ramsey Mayor Deirdre Dillon told a packed meeting room.

The borough attorney advised the mayor and council to table to the ordinance until that law firm is retained, Dillon said.

The ordinance at issue, introduced last month, revises one currently on the books that prohibits the firing of any pistol, shotgun, rifle or other type of firearms anywhere in the borough, but exempts indoor and outdoor firing ranges.

The revisions to ban the use of firearms at shooting ranges as well were introduced after the borough received an application to create a 60,000-square-foot indoor firing range at the former Liberty Travel building on Spring Street. An application for the facility dubbed the Screaming Eagle Club is pending with the Ramsey Planning Board.

RELATED: With Firing Range Pending, Ramsey To Consider Tightening Gun Law

New Jersey Second Amendment Society President Alexander Roubian sent a letter to the mayor and council on Feb. 1, stating: Our legal team is currently preparing the necessary Complaint to file with the N.J. District Court in the event the Ordinance is passed; however we ask that the proposed ordinance be pulled from the agenda so we can work together on an amicable solution without the need for costly litigation.

Roubian, a graduate of Ramsey High School, addressed the mayor and council in person Wednesday. We are very confident that we have a very, very good case here, he said, warning prevailing parties will be recovering their legal fees.

It is a chance we are willing to take, Dillon responded.

A string of additional speakers took to the mic to voice their concerns about both safety and Second Amendment issues.

RELATED: Ramsey Residents Say 'No' To Proposed Indoor Shooting Range

We like the town the way it is, a bucolic beautiful town that is safe for our children, said Ramsey resident Ellen OKeefe.

Andrew Stravitz, of Allendale, pointed out that the Waldwick Pistol & Rifle Club has been a few miles away from Ramsey for about 50 years. In 50 years, zero injuries in the shooting range over there, he said.

Barbara Puccia, of Ramsey, said It only takes one, and one person only, that has bad intentions that can cause a tragedy in this town.

Go here to read the rest:

Second Amendment Group Threatens Lawsuit, Ramsey Tables Gun ... - Garfield Daily Voice

Under the propsoal, the 1st weekend of September would be called the Second Amendment Sales Tax holiday.

Andrew Weil , WBIR 11:44 PM. EST February 09, 2017

Rows of guns for sale in showcase of retail store with application on counter (Photo: wingedwolf, wingedwolf)

NASHVILLE - An East Tennessee lawmaker wants there to be an annual tax-free weekend geared toward gun owners.

The bill, filed by Rep. Dennis Powers, R-Jacksboro, would establish the "Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday" for the first weekend of September.

The tax holiday would cover firearms and ammunition. Guns covered by the tax discount would include shotguns, rifles, pistols, revolvers, BB guns, and Muzzleloaders, according to the bill's text.

Tennessee already features an annual tax-free weekend at the end of summer, but that's geared specifically toward back-to-school shopping.

Last year, Louisiana and Mississippi each hosted a Second Amendment sales tax holiday weekend.

If approved, Tennessee's first "Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday" would be in 2017.

( 2017 WBIR)

Read this article:

Tennessee lawmaker proposes tax-free weekend for guns | WBIR.com - WBIR.com

In Connecticut, Governor Malloy is moving to increase the cost of a firearms permit. The New Haven Register reports:

Gun owners will see huge increases in permit fees that would raise millions of dollars to help the state combat its two-year, $3.6 billion deficit.

As part of his budget, Malloy is proposing to increase the state portion of the pistol permit fee from $70 to $300. He also is proposing the cost of the initial 5-year pistol permit fee from $140 to $370.

The increase in fees for gun owners will bring in another $9 million to the state annually, according to the governors budget estimates.

Additionally, Malloy is proposing to increase background check fees from its current $50 to $75.

If he is successful, that will set the cost of a first-time gun permit at $445, and the cost of renewal at $300.

Although I strongly disagree with it, I understand the intellectual case in favor of pistol permits per se especially in states such as Connecticut, where a permit acts as a one-time permission slip to do everything associated with guns (buy, own, carry, etc.). In the view of the gun-control movement, the permitting system serves to weed out those who are disqualified from ownership, as well as to ensure that the police know who is carrying and who is not. Because the system is open to abuse, leads to situations such as Carol Bownes, and seems to have no positive effect in comparison with similar states that dont issue permits (see Vermont and Maine), I strongly oppose it. But I can at least acknowledge the argument. Guns are dangerous weapons. Its not inherently unreasonable to want some regulation, nor, if a permitting system is to exist, to ask users to cover their costs.

I cannot, however, understand the argument in favor of high fees for pistol permits.If the case for permits is to distinguish between the law-abiding and the criminal, the case for high fees is to distinguish between the rich and the poor. In and of itself, that is disgusting. But applied to a constitutionally enumerated right that has been routinely recognized as such by the Supreme Court? Thats pitchfork time. And to come from the Democratic party, which views itself as being on the side of the poor, and which is institutionally opposed to voter identification laws on the grounds that one should not have to pay or be inconvenienced in order to vote? Thats just too much. (Why isnt this a poll tax or Jim Crow? And you cant answer, because I choose not to accept that the Second Amendment exists.)I understand that Governor Malloy doesnt like guns. But I also dont care. The law is the law. He doesnt get to edit the Bill of Rights.

The best case that can be made is that Malloy is trying to balance the budget on the backs of those whose behavior he dislikes. In a vacuum, this would be unpleasant. But when the behavior in question is legally protected, it is an outrage. Make no mistake: This isnt about covering user costs;its not about safety; and its not about Newtown. Its about astate government being willing to restrict a core individual rightbecause it happens to dislike its scope. I can only hope that the state Senate now split evenly between Democrats and Republicans puts the kibosh on the idea post haste.

See the rest here:

Connecticut Moves to Restrict the Second Amendment to Rich People - National Review

DENVER A host of bills aiming to expand Second Amendment rights were heard Wednesday by the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs committee.

Included were House bills 1036, which would remove the prohibition on carrying a concealed firearm on school campuses; 1037, which would allow business owners and employees to use deadly force on intruders; and 1097, which would repeal the limitations on magazine capacity in Colorado.

The hearing for H.B. 1036 lasted more than four hours before Democrats killed the bill on a party-line vote, 6-3.

Senate Minority Leader Patrick Neville, R-Franktown, argued the bill would have sent a clear message to criminals that schools are not gun-free zones that could be targeted.

The purpose is to say were going to do more than put up flashy signs, Neville said.

Rep. Jovan Melton, D-Aurora, said the bill would have allowed individuals who were not held to the same level of training as law enforcement to carry firearms on school grounds, and would have disrupted schools being a safe place for students.

If you come from a neighborhood like I came from, often the classroom is the only safe place for a student to get away from a gun because when theyre out on the street, theyre constantly facing threats that just happen within their neighborhoods, Melton said.

The death of H.B. 1036 by the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee likely was a preview of what will happen when other Second Amendment bills passed by the Senate make it to the Democrat-majority House.

In other House action on Wednesday, 23 bills were heard in committees, including:

Senate Joint Memorial 1, which would ask Congress to re-evaluate how wildfire suppression is funded through public land managers, was passed by the House Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources Committee, 13-0.The memorial is being put forward because of the practice of fire transfers that often take funds from mitigation efforts to pay for firefighting. As a memorial, the bill has no power but represents an effort to keep the issue on the minds of congressional representatives.

Senate Bill 27, which would raise the penalty for texting while driving, was passed 4-1 in the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs committee and referred to the Finance Committee. The bill would make the initial penalty $300 and 5 points against a drivers record, and $750 and 6 points on subsequent offenses.Lperkins@durangoherald.com

Read this article:

Legislative Roundup: Second Amendment bills heard in committee - The Durango Herald

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms. The Florida constitution contains a similar guarantee. With few exceptions, Florida law allows licensed individuals to carry concealed firearms in most public locations. Based on these constitutional and statutory rights under U.S. and Florida law, many owners residing in community associations believe that they also have the right to conceal-carry firearms when on their communitys common elements. In the absence of a provision in the community associations governing documents, owners may exercise their lawful right to carry concealed firearms on common elements. However, who prevails when an owners constitutional and statutory rights conflict with a community associations attempts to regulate the carrying and use of firearms on its common elements?

Generally, a community associations power to regulate use of common element property may be exercised so long as the exercise is reasonable, is not violative of any constitutional restrictions, and does not exceed any specific limitations set out in the statute or the condominium documents. Juno by the Sea North Condominium Assn (The Towers), Inc. v. Manfredonia, 397 So.2d 297, at 302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Given the commonplace nature of limitations on firearms imposed in other places either by private property owners or state and federal law (schools, churches, bars, etc.), a Court would likely determine that limitations on concealed-carry of firearms on a community associations common elements is reasonable. In GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. Georgia, 687 F.3d 1244, 1265 (11th Cir. 2012), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that An individuals right to bear arms as enshrined in the Second Amendment, whatever its full scope, certainly must be limited by the equally fundamental right of a private property owner to exercise exclusive dominion and control over its land. Based on this holding, a Court would also likely determine that a community association prohibition on concealed-carry firearms on common element property is not violative of owners second amendment constitutional rights. As noted above, Florida law currently does not, as a general matter, prohibit an owner of private property from regulating the use of firearms on its property. Accordingly, absent a provision in the community associations own governing documents establishing a right of owners or guests to conceal-carry on common elements, we believe that a community association may generally regulate such use.

Notwithstanding the general ability of community associations to regulate firearms on common element property, such regulations should be drafted with the community associations particular circumstances in mind. For instance, Fla. Stat. 790.251 prohibits employers from preventing its employees, contractors, volunteers, or other invitees from keeping a firearm in a locked vehicle in a parking lot on the employers property. To the extent a community association has employees, Fla. Stat. 790.251 may apply to require the community association to allow its employees, contractors, volunteers or other invitees to keep firearms in their vehicles. Additionally, regulations on firearms should be carefully drafted to ensure that the regulations are proper in scope. For example, if the community associations regulations on firearms are so broad as to affect an owners ability to transfer and keep firearms in his or her home, the regulation could be seen as impermissibly preventing an owner from exercising his fundamental constitutional right to maintain firearms in the home for personal defense (as established by the U.S. Supreme Courts decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)), which may subject the rule to invalidation under the Juno by the Sea North Condominium analysis.

Although a community association is generally authorized to regulate the carrying and use of firearms on common element property, the validity of a particular regulation will be dependent on several factors discussed above. Accordingly, we recommend that a community association seeking to impose regulations on firearms consult with legal counsel to ensure that the regulation is thoughtfully drafted and will withstand scrutiny if challenged.

Follow this link:

Community Associations and the Second Amendment - Lexology (registration)

Florida state law 790.33 articulates, in short, that only the Florida State Legislature can and will regulate statewide laws encompassing anything firearms and ammunition related. This law is in place to ensure the state of Florida in its entirety remains consistent withgoverning gun laws. This safeguardslaw-abiding citizens from beingprosecuted for crossing a county or municipality line and accidentally violatinga local firearm law. Add to that the fact that misinformation or accidental ignorance can become an issue, when these laws can become extraneous and too numerous for the well-intended citizen to keep track of.

While Florida state law renders alllocal firearms laws moot, unfortunately, somelocal laws are still alive in certain municipalities and have remained in place because of an effort to exert some level of local autonomy. These municipalities are aware that these ordinances are illegal in the big picture, but refuse to erase them from their books.

The Florida state legislature further regulatespenalties on anyone who chooses to obstruct the state laws by imposing their illegal ordinances.

Tallahassee Mayor, Andrew Gillum, found himself named as a defendant in a lawsuit brought against him by Florida Carry and the Second Amendment Foundation with support of the NRA. The Mayor defends his position, and refuses to remove a law still on the books. This law states that no guns shall be fired in parks located within the city limits of Tallahassee.

The judge in this case recently ruled in favor of the Mayor and all city officials named, finding there has been no wrong-doing on their part. The ruling is currently under appeal, based upon the constitutionality of this law.

Gillum feels he is within his right, as an elected official to enforce and uphold laws that are in his constituents best interests. He feels the state oversight is in direct opposition to what he was elected to do.The flip side to that is that picking and choosing what to uphold is counter-intuitive, andone of the fundamental elements tothis appeal.

What the Mayor is seemingly overlooking with State Law 790.33 is the bigger picture and how it affects all law-abiding gun owners and concealed carriers who reside within his governance and are some of the individuals who elected him into office.

With the appeal of the decision of the district court, its going to be up to Court of Appeals to consider the final outcome.

All law-abiding gun ownersof Florida should pay close attention the outcome of this case could have huge implications for them moving forward.

Author's Bio: Pamela Jablonski

More here:

Inconsistent Florida Firearm Laws Pose Potential New Threat to Second Amendment Rights - Bearing Arms

Winter Storm Warningissued February 8 at 2:50PM EST expiring February 9 at 10:00AM EST in effect for: Adams, Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Lancaster, Lebanon, Perry, Schuylkill, York

Winter Weather Advisoryissued February 8 at 10:39AM EST expiring February 9 at 9:00AM EST in effect for: Baltimore, Carroll, Frederick

Winter Weather Advisoryissued February 8 at 11:52AM EST expiring February 9 at 9:00AM EST in effect for: Baltimore, Baltimore City

Winter Weather Advisoryissued February 8 at 9:48AM EST expiring February 9 at 2:00PM EST in effect for: Kent, Queen Annes

Winter Storm Warningissued February 8 at 9:48AM EST expiring February 9 at 4:00PM EST in effect for: Cecil

Winter Storm Watchissued February 8 at 4:51AM EST expiring February 9 at 9:00AM EST in effect for: Allegany, Baltimore, Carroll, Frederick, Washington

Winter Storm Warningissued February 8 at 4:13AM EST expiring February 9 at 10:00AM EST in effect for: Adams, Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Lancaster, Lebanon, Perry, Schuylkill, York

Winter Storm Watchissued February 7 at 9:28PM EST expiring February 9 at 6:00PM EST in effect for: Cecil

Winter Storm Watchissued February 7 at 4:02PM EST expiring February 9 at 9:00AM EST in effect for: Adams, Columbia, Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Fulton, Huntingdon, Juniata, Lancaster, Lebanon, Mifflin, Montour, Northumberland, Perry, Schuylkill, Snyder, Union, York

Continue reading here:

Second Amendment rights activists rally in Annapolis - ABC2News ... - ABC2 News

Mark L. Hopkins More Content Now

This is the second in a series of columns that relate to the purpose of the Second Amendment and the gun rights issue that continues to fester in our society. The first column pointed out the strong desire on the part of the leadership of the country to have a strong federal government. The focus here is in the feeling of necessity in the leadership to have a means to enforce federal law and to protect the government from citizen rebellions. The Second Amendment became the law of the land in 1791. Prior to that Daniel Shays, a former captain in the Continental Army, became the leader of a citizens rebellion in Massachusetts in response to what Shays and other farmers believed were high taxes and a government that was unresponsive to their grievances. In January 1787, they raided the arsenal in Springfield, Massachusetts and continued their anti-government rebellions through the winter of that year. This was two years before the writing of the U.S. Bill of Rights with its all-important Second Amendment. Retired General George Washington was so upset by Shays Rebellion that he wrote three letters commenting on it. Excerpts from these letters follow: But for Gods sake tell me what is the cause of all these commotions. Do they proceed from licentiousness, British influence disseminated by Tories, or real grievances which admit of redress? In a second letter he worried that, Commotion of this sort, like snowballs, gather strength as they roll, if there is no opposition in the way to divide and crumble them. I am mortified beyond expression that in the moment of our acknowledged independence we should by our conduct verify the predictions of our transatlantic foe, and render ourselves ridiculous and contemptible in the eyes of all Europe. Later he wrote, If three years ago any person had told me that at this day I should see such a formidable rebellion against the laws and constitutions or our own making as now appears, I should have thought him a bedlamite, a fit subject for a mad house. Shays Rebellion was eventually put down when a group of wealthy merchants in Boston pooled their resources and created their own militia to quell the uprising. In the early 1790s, a second major rebellion began in Western Pennsylvania. It was called the Whiskey Rebellion and, again, was a revolt against taxes. Thus, the Second Amendment was written and signed into law in the shadow of these two major citizens rebellions. The U.S. Congress reacted to this second major rebellion by passing The Militia Act which gave teeth to the Second Amendment by requiring all military-age free adults to stand for service to enforce the laws of the Union, thereby insuring domestic tranquility. President Washington himself gave orders to form a militia of 13,000 men to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. His words later were ..this is how a well-regulated Militia should be used to serve the government in maintaining a strong security in each state, as the Second Amendment of The Bill of Rights intended. From the letters written by George Washington and the actions of Congress it is obvious that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to strengthen the Federal Government against rebellion and insurrection. It was not, as some contend, to equip the citizens to make war on the government. In fact, it was just the opposite. My first of the three gun rights columns focused on the desire of the U.S. leadership to have a strong central government and the means to protect that government from rebellion. In this column the focus has been on the like-minded efforts of both President George Washington and Congress to put teeth in the Second Amendment so security and an orderly society could be fostered. My third and final column on this subject will come next week.

Dr. Mark L. Hopkins writes for More Content Now and Scripps Newspapers. He is past president of colleges and universities in four states and currently serves as executive director of a higher-education consulting service. You will find Hopkins latest book, Journey to Gettysburg, on Amazon.com. Contact him at presnet@presnet.net.

Continued here:

Mark L. Hopkins: The Second Amendment and Shays' Rebellion - Sleepy Eye Herald Dispatch

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt has asked congressional leaders to take action to protect Second Amendment rights of Social Security beneficiaries, according to a news release.

A group of 13 state attorneys general, including Schmidt, Wednesday urged congressional leaders to repeal an overreaching federal regulation that they said denies certain Social Security beneficiaries the right to keep and bear arms, according to the release.

In late December 2016, the Social Security Administration under then-President Obamas direction published a final rule that broadened a previously narrow prohibition for those adjudicated as a mental defective or who have been committed to a mental institution to include numerous individuals that Congress never intended to cover with this exclusion, such as program beneficiaries with representatives or alternate payees, according to the release.

This new rule allows the Social Security Administration to designate an individual a mental defective by its own discretion and relies heavily on overly broad definitions included in previous guidance from the U.S. Department of Justice, according to the release.

Read the original here:

13 attorneys general seek Second Amendment protections - Ottawaherald.com

Mark L. Hopkins More Content Now

This is the second in a series of columns that relate to the purpose of the Second Amendment and the gun rights issue that continues to fester in our society. The first column pointed out the strong desire on the part of the leadership of the country to have a strong federal government. The focus here is in the feeling of necessity in the leadership to have a means to enforce federal law and to protect the government from citizen rebellions. The Second Amendment became the law of the land in 1791. Prior to that Daniel Shays, a former captain in the Continental Army, became the leader of a citizens rebellion in Massachusetts in response to what Shays and other farmers believed were high taxes and a government that was unresponsive to their grievances. In January 1787, they raided the arsenal in Springfield, Massachusetts and continued their anti-government rebellions through the winter of that year. This was two years before the writing of the U.S. Bill of Rights with its all-important Second Amendment. Retired General George Washington was so upset by Shays Rebellion that he wrote three letters commenting on it. Excerpts from these letters follow: But for Gods sake tell me what is the cause of all these commotions. Do they proceed from licentiousness, British influence disseminated by Tories, or real grievances which admit of redress? In a second letter he worried that, Commotion of this sort, like snowballs, gather strength as they roll, if there is no opposition in the way to divide and crumble them. I am mortified beyond expression that in the moment of our acknowledged independence we should by our conduct verify the predictions of our transatlantic foe, and render ourselves ridiculous and contemptible in the eyes of all Europe. Later he wrote, If three years ago any person had told me that at this day I should see such a formidable rebellion against the laws and constitutions or our own making as now appears, I should have thought him a bedlamite, a fit subject for a mad house. Shays Rebellion was eventually put down when a group of wealthy merchants in Boston pooled their resources and created their own militia to quell the uprising. In the early 1790s, a second major rebellion began in Western Pennsylvania. It was called the Whiskey Rebellion and, again, was a revolt against taxes. Thus, the Second Amendment was written and signed into law in the shadow of these two major citizens rebellions. The U.S. Congress reacted to this second major rebellion by passing The Militia Act which gave teeth to the Second Amendment by requiring all military-age free adults to stand for service to enforce the laws of the Union, thereby insuring domestic tranquility. President Washington himself gave orders to form a militia of 13,000 men to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. His words later were ..this is how a well-regulated Militia should be used to serve the government in maintaining a strong security in each state, as the Second Amendment of The Bill of Rights intended. From the letters written by George Washington and the actions of Congress it is obvious that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to strengthen the Federal Government against rebellion and insurrection. It was not, as some contend, to equip the citizens to make war on the government. In fact, it was just the opposite. My first of the three gun rights columns focused on the desire of the U.S. leadership to have a strong central government and the means to protect that government from rebellion. In this column the focus has been on the like-minded efforts of both President George Washington and Congress to put teeth in the Second Amendment so security and an orderly society could be fostered. My third and final column on this subject will come next week.

Dr. Mark L. Hopkins writes for More Content Now and Scripps Newspapers. He is past president of colleges and universities in four states and currently serves as executive director of a higher-education consulting service. You will find Hopkins latest book, Journey to Gettysburg, on Amazon.com. Contact him at presnet@presnet.net.

Original post:

Mark L. Hopkins: The Second Amendment and Shays' Rebellion - Wicked Local Sharon

On Nov. 3, Donald Trump announced a group of grassroots and mainstream groups as well as public figures called theSecond Amendment Coalitionwith the sole purpose of protecting Second Amendment liberties.

While many of the groups and individuals already service the mission, it was unclear whatthey would do as a conglomerate.Guns.com caught up with two of its members, gun maker Jesse James and six-time Olympic medal winner Kim Rhode, at SHOT Show in Las Vegas in January 2017 to discuss more about it.

The coalition is really about bringing a lot of industry and experience to the table to help, advise and give him the best advice opportunities to help the industry that we can, saidRhode.

At the top of the list for James is universal concealed-carry reciprocity. If youre fingerprinted and youre double background checked and youre firearm trained to have a concealed carry license in your state, that should transfer to every other state. And it doesnt now, he said. There is currently a bill in Congress that hopes to achieve this.

Read the original post:

What is Trump's 2nd Amendment Coalition? (VIDEO) - Guns.com

Trumps nomination of federal judge Neil Gorsuch to the US Supreme Court has been greeted with much glee by conservatives and a well-anticipated gnashing of teeth by the progressive Left. Naturally, those of us in the gun community have our own particularized questions about what a Justice Gorsuch might mean for the Second Amendment. Lets take a look, shall we?

A look at Judge Gorsuchs generalized judicial philosophy is certainly encouraging. Given that it was Scalia who led the proSecond Amendment decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and MacDonald v. Chicago, and that Gorsuch has been described not inaccurately as Scalia 2.0, we may reasonably hope that Gorsuch will bring a Scalia-like originalist and textualist approach to Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Judge Gorsuchs actual record on the Second Amendment is rather sparse, however. He has not been involved in first-principle cases such as Heller and MacDonald, so his decisions have nothing as explicitly affirming. It is worth asking, then, whether any of his decisions could suggest he would approach the Second Amendment in a negative manner.

Having spent decades fighting antiSecond Amendment legislation and jurisprudence, the gun community is sensitive to any suggestion, however slight, that a Supreme Court nominee might be predisposed against their views. The result is sometimes a tendency to object prematurely and cry wolf.

Some in the gun community seem to be leaning in this direction because of a case in Judge Gorsuchs recent past: U.S. v. Rodriguez, 739 F.3d 481 (10th Ct. App. 2013). In my view, however, this 30 opinion (which Gorsuch did not write, but in which he concurred) is entirely consistent with a robust reading of the Second Amendment. Rodriguez is perhaps best described as a Fourth Amendment case (right against unreasonable search) with Second Amendment overtones, much like the recent Robinson decision out of the Fourth Circuit.

In both cases, the police lawfully that is, with reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed stopped an armed person and disarmed him during the stop for purposes of safety. In both cases the person stopped was found to be in unlawful possession of a gun and was ultimately arrested.

In Rodriguez, the Court of Appeals unanimously, with Judge Gorsuch concurring, found the police seizure of the stopped persons gun for purposes of safety to have been lawful under the Fourth Amendment, and not an infringement of the Second Amendment.

Some in the gun community have characterized Rodriguez and Robinson as holding that a person who exercises his Second Amendment rights is now required to sacrifice his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search. I disagree with that view. While we must always be vigilant against substantive infringement of our Second Amendment rights and we know that those intent on such infringement will never cease their attacks we also need to acknowledge that all constitutional rights are subject to reasonable limitation, particularly when that reasonable limitation is transient.

The Fourth Amendment, for example, does not protect us from all government searches it protects us from unreasonable government searches. Similarly, the Second Amendment does not provide an absolute right to keep and bear arms under any circumstance.

Most in the gun community, for example, would agree that violent felons and the mentally deranged should be denied the right to arms and that doing so does not infringe the Second Amendment. Even in the context of law-abiding gun owners, few would consider a prohibition against carrying a gun into the Oval Office when meeting with President Trump to be an infringement of the Second Amendment, so long as our right to be armed could be asserted immediately afterward.

The transient seizure of a gun in the course of a lawful police stopa seizure, that is, based on reasonable suspicion that a crime is underwayand under circumstances in which the police do not know whether the person stopped is armed lawfully is, in my view, not an infringement of the Second Amendment. Requiring the officer making a lawful stop to presume that the person stopped stopped on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity is law-abiding and is armed lawfully strikes me as unreasonable.

The rationale for such a transient taking the safety of the officer, his partners, the public, and even the person stopped is compelling and reasonable. Guns are, in fact, dangerous thats why those of us who concealed-carry them for personal protection do so in the first place: to make ourselves more dangerous to criminal predators.

As a strong Second Amendment advocate and someone who has concealed-carried a firearm for pretty much every day of my adult life (so, for most of the last 30 years), I find it difficult to get too worked up over a temporary seizure of my handgun during a lawful police stop so long as my gun is returned once the reasonable suspicion of criminal activity has been dispelled and the stop completed.

I, for one, welcome Judge Gorsuchs nomination to the Supreme Court, with great optimism for the Courts future Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Andrew F. Branca is an attorney and the author of The Law of Self Defense: The Indispensable Guide for the Armed Citizen.

Follow this link:

Neil Gorsuch -- Second Amendment Would Be Safe with Him on ...

Mark L. Hopkins More Content Now

This is the second in a series of columns that relate to the purpose of the Second Amendment and the gun rights issue that continues to fester in our society. The first column pointed out the strong desire on the part of the leadership of the country to have a strong federal government. The focus here is in the feeling of necessity in the leadership to have a means to enforce federal law and to protect the government from citizen rebellions. The Second Amendment became the law of the land in 1791. Prior to that Daniel Shays, a former captain in the Continental Army, became the leader of a citizens rebellion in Massachusetts in response to what Shays and other farmers believed were high taxes and a government that was unresponsive to their grievances. In January 1787, they raided the arsenal in Springfield, Massachusetts and continued their anti-government rebellions through the winter of that year. This was two years before the writing of the U.S. Bill of Rights with its all-important Second Amendment. Retired General George Washington was so upset by Shays Rebellion that he wrote three letters commenting on it. Excerpts from these letters follow: But for Gods sake tell me what is the cause of all these commotions. Do they proceed from licentiousness, British influence disseminated by Tories, or real grievances which admit of redress? In a second letter he worried that, Commotion of this sort, like snowballs, gather strength as they roll, if there is no opposition in the way to divide and crumble them. I am mortified beyond expression that in the moment of our acknowledged independence we should by our conduct verify the predictions of our transatlantic foe, and render ourselves ridiculous and contemptible in the eyes of all Europe. Later he wrote, If three years ago any person had told me that at this day I should see such a formidable rebellion against the laws and constitutions or our own making as now appears, I should have thought him a bedlamite, a fit subject for a mad house. Shays Rebellion was eventually put down when a group of wealthy merchants in Boston pooled their resources and created their own militia to quell the uprising. In the early 1790s, a second major rebellion began in Western Pennsylvania. It was called the Whiskey Rebellion and, again, was a revolt against taxes. Thus, the Second Amendment was written and signed into law in the shadow of these two major citizens rebellions. The U.S. Congress reacted to this second major rebellion by passing The Militia Act which gave teeth to the Second Amendment by requiring all military-age free adults to stand for service to enforce the laws of the Union, thereby insuring domestic tranquility. President Washington himself gave orders to form a militia of 13,000 men to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. His words later were ..this is how a well-regulated Militia should be used to serve the government in maintaining a strong security in each state, as the Second Amendment of The Bill of Rights intended. From the letters written by George Washington and the actions of Congress it is obvious that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to strengthen the Federal Government against rebellion and insurrection. It was not, as some contend, to equip the citizens to make war on the government. In fact, it was just the opposite. My first of the three gun rights columns focused on the desire of the U.S. leadership to have a strong central government and the means to protect that government from rebellion. In this column the focus has been on the like-minded efforts of both President George Washington and Congress to put teeth in the Second Amendment so security and an orderly society could be fostered. My third and final column on this subject will come next week.

Dr. Mark L. Hopkins writes for More Content Now and Scripps Newspapers. He is past president of colleges and universities in four states and currently serves as executive director of a higher-education consulting service. You will find Hopkins latest book, Journey to Gettysburg, on Amazon.com. Contact him at presnet@presnet.net.

Go here to read the rest:

Mark L. Hopkins: The Second Amendment and Shays' Rebellion - Wicked Local Wayland

This week, President Trump kept one of his most important campaign promises by nominating an originalist judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalias death last February. Scalia was the courts foremost practitioner of originalism and textualism, judicial philosophies that seek to resolve constitutional questions by reference to the language of the document, as publicly understood at the time of its enactment.

This approach led Scalia to author the historic opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which confirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for defensive purposes.

Judge Gorsuchs embrace of originalism is a bulwark for our Second Amendment rights. When given the opportunity to consider the matter in his professional capacity, Judge Gorsuch has made clear that he understands the importance of the right to keep and bear arms.

In a case concerning a technical question of what the government must prove to establish a violation of the Gun Control Act, Judge Gorsuch noted that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly. His statements in that case strongly indicate that he would hold the government to a high standard before allowing it to strip someone of the right to keep and bear arms.

Its hardly a secret that many in the federal judiciary have not shown the Second Amendment the respect it deserves. Justice Thomas, another originalist on the Supreme Court noted as much in 2015 when dissenting from the courts refusal to hear a Second Amendment challenge to a San Francisco ordinance requiring firearms in the home to be kept locked away or disabled with a trigger lock. Despite the clarity with which we described the Second Amendments core protection for the right of self-defense, Thomas wrote, lower courts, including the ones here, have failed to protect it.

Opposition to Judge Gorsuchs confirmation has already started amongst gun control supporters, and they are once again proving that dishonesty is no impediment in pursuing their agenda. Addressing Judge Gorsuchs nomination, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi claimed that Judge Gorsuch favors felons over gun safety. This claim was nothing more than a desperate attempt to smear the distinguished jurist, which is why it has already been found to be false by the fact-checking (and left-leaning) website Politifact.

Disappointed supporters of Hillary Clinton are wailing, gnashing their teeth, and vowing to obstruct Judge Gorsuchs confirmation. Their tactics, as usual, are heavy on hysteria and short on facts or reason.

Yet both sides understood that the 2016 presidential election was largely a referendum on the future direction of the U.S. Supreme Court. The American people spoke loudly and clearly in favor of respecting the original meaning of the Constitution. The Senate should therefore do its sworn duty and swiftly confirm Judge Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court.

See more here:

Trump Supreme Court Nominee Neil M. Gorsuch Would Respect the Second Amendment - NRA ILA