1. Second Amendment

Category Archives: Second Amendment

Rajya Sabha MPs unite for Delhi slum dwellers

Posted on by

On the last day of the Winter Session, the Rajya Sabha on Tuesday passed the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Amendment Bill 2014 that offers protection from demolition to the residents of unauthorised colonies in the Capital, till 2017.

The Bill provides an extension to the existing Act, which gives protection to unauthorised colonies from demolition for a period of three years from January 1, 2015.

The two sides buried their disagreements to come together to pass the Bill, taking a humane view of the issue. The Opposition parties made it clear that they were supporting the Government in passing the Bill because it offers protection to people in need who live in these unauthorised colonies and would have to face eviction in the dead of the winter, unless the Bill was passed.

The agreement was however, disrupted after BJP's Vijay Goel commented against the Congress and a united Opposition rose in protest.

Union Urban Development Minister M Venkaiah Naidu, while piloting the Bill, said lakhs of people in Delhi live in slums and unauthorised colonies and it is imperative to seek a long-term solution to the problem. He said the government is open to good examples from across the country and will study the slum redevelopment models being followed in Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Gujarat.

Mr. Naidu accepted suggestions from the Opposition on focussing on rehabilitation and said steps will be taken towards regularisation of unauthorised colonies in Delhi.

An amendment was moved in the Bill that provides unauthorised colonies which have come up till June 1,2014 will be entitled for regularisation; the earlier cutoff date was February 8, 2007.

The Minister also said providing housing for all is a major challenge for the government and the national housing plan is now in its final stages.

Originally posted here:

Rajya Sabha MPs unite for Delhi slum dwellers

Volokh Conspiracy: Second Amendment and people who had been committed to a mental institution 28 years ago

Posted on by

Under federal law, people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution however long ago are barred from possessing guns. Congress agreed that people with long-past mental problems might now be sane, and thus not especially dangerous, and provided for a means to apply for restoration of gun rights. But then in 1992 Congress ordered ATF not to spend any money applying the restoration program. And while it provided, in 2007, that people could get their rights restored by applying to a state that has a qualifying program for evaluating applicants mental fitness, many states have no such program.

This case was brought by a resident of one such state that lacks a relief-from-disabilities program, Michigan. From the courts opinion, Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriffs Dept (6th Cir. Dec. 18, 2014):

This case presents an important issue of first impression in the federal courts: whether a prohibition on the possession of firearms by a person who has been committed to a mental institution, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4), violates the Second Amendment. Twenty-eight years ago, Clifford Charles Tyler was involuntarily committed for less than one month after allegedly undergoing an emotionally devastating divorce. Consequently, he can never possess a firearm. Tyler filed suit in federal court, seeking a declaratory judgment that 922(g)(4) is unconstitutional as applied to him. The district court dismissed Tylers suit for failure to state a claim. Because Tylers complaint validly states a violation of the Second Amendment, we reverse and remand.

Tyler is a seventy-three-year-old resident of Hillsdale County, Michigan. On January 2, 1986, a state probate court committed Tyler to a mental institution. Tyler alleges that he underwent an emotionally devastating divorce in 1985 and that he was involuntarily committed because of a risk that he might be suicidal.

Tyler submitted a 2012 substance-abuse evaluation containing additional information about his 1985 depression. In 1985, when Tyler was forty-five years old, Tylers wife of twenty-three years served him divorce papers. Prior to filing for divorce, Tylers ex-wife allegedly ran away with another man and depleted Tylers finances. Tyler felt overwhelmed and sat in the middle of the floor at home pounding his head. According to a mental-health evaluation submitted by Tyler, Tyler was crying non-stop, not sleeping, depressed, and suicidal at this time. Tylers daughters became scared and contacted the police. [Tyler was then involuntarily committed. -EV]

In 2012, Tyler underwent a psychological evaluation. Tyler informed the psychologist that he had never experienced a depressive episode other than his 1985 incident. The psychologists report indicated that Tyler has no criminal history. The psychologist contacted Tylers physician who also reported that she had not detected evidence of mental illness in Tyler. The psychologist determined that Tylers prior involuntary commitment appeared to be a brief reactive depressive episode in response to his wife divorcing him. The psychologist determined that there was no evidence of mental illness.

The court concluded quite rightly, I think that Hellers endorsement of restrictions on gun ownership by the mentally ill doesnt dispose of the case:

The Courts assurance that Heller does not cast doubt on prohibitions on the possession of firearms by the mentally ill does not resolve this case. For 922(g)(4) prohibits firearm possession not just by the mentally ill but by anyone who has been committed to a mental institution. Hellers assurance that the state may prohibit the mentally ill from possessing firearms may provide solid constitutional ground for 922(g)(4)s restriction as to an individual adjudicated as a mental defective, but it is insufficient by itself to support the restriction as to individuals who have been involuntarily committed at some time in the past.

The court then concluded that strict scrutiny (not intermediate scrutiny) was generally the proper test to apply to gun restrictions, outside those categories excluded from Second Amendment scrutiny by Heller. The court, however, predict[ed] that the application of strict scrutiny over intermediate scrutiny will not generally affect how circuits decide various challenges to federal firearm regulations; this might seem surprising, but the courts explanation of this prediction on pp. 26-27 strikes me as quite plausible. And the court then applied strict scrutiny here are some excerpts from the analysis, which focuses largely on the fact that Congress (1) chose to create a system for people with past mental commitments to regain their Second Amendment rights, but (2) then defunded the federal system and decided to rely on state choices whether to set up their own state systems:

At issue here is only 922(g)(4)s prohibition on possession by persons previously committed to a mental institution. Not all previously institutionalized persons are mentally ill at a later time, so the law is, at least somewhat, overbroad. But is it impermissibly so? Congress, in its efforts to keep firearms away from the mentally ill, may cast a wider net than is necessary to perfectly remove the harm. A prophylactic approach thus obviate[s] the necessity for large numbers of individualized determinations. But is 922(g)(4)s net too wide? Are previously institutionalized persons sufficiently dangerous, as a class, that it is permissible to deprive permanently all such persons of the Second Amendment right to bear arms?

View post:

Volokh Conspiracy: Second Amendment and people who had been committed to a mental institution 28 years ago

RWW News: Mike Vanderboegh Promises ‘Second Amendment Remedies’ To Washington Background Check Law – Video

Posted on by


RWW News: Mike Vanderboegh Promises #39;Second Amendment Remedies #39; To Washington Background Check Law
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/anti-government-leader-promises-second-amendment-remedies-washington-background-check-law Right Wing Watch reports on the extreme rhetoric and ...

By: RWW Blog

More:

RWW News: Mike Vanderboegh Promises 'Second Amendment Remedies' To Washington Background Check Law - Video

12.16.14 | Second Scoop: Obama pick conf, Bushmaster sued, Gun Rights WINNING, Good Guys, SilencerCo – Video

Posted on by


12.16.14 | Second Scoop: Obama pick conf, Bushmaster sued, Gun Rights WINNING, Good Guys, SilencerCo
The Second Scoop: Chris Cheng provides humor, insight, and commentary on the top gun stories you should know about. Come back every Tuesday night for a delicious serving of Second Amendment.

By: Top Shot Chris Cheng

See original here:

12.16.14 | Second Scoop: Obama pick conf, Bushmaster sued, Gun Rights WINNING, Good Guys, SilencerCo - Video

Gavin Seim sponsors I-594, Second Amendment Rally in Olympia, Washington. Lawlessness Ensues! – Video

Posted on by


Gavin Seim sponsors I-594, Second Amendment Rally in Olympia, Washington. Lawlessness Ensues!
On December 13th, 2014, about a thousand 2nd Amendment and Freedom Advocates converged on the Washington State Capitol Grounds to protest the useless and impotent legislation of Initiative...

By: Rogue Reflections

Original post:

Gavin Seim sponsors I-594, Second Amendment Rally in Olympia, Washington. Lawlessness Ensues! - Video

Gun nuts racial duplicity: How Ferguson and Garner undermined their Second Amendment crusade

Posted on by

Gun extremists, whose grasp of constitutional law and American history is typically as firm as their grasp on empathy and decency, have been telling us for some time that a well-armed populace is necessary to keep tyranny at bay. The recent announcements that white police officers would not face trial for shooting unarmed black men would seem to provide a good opportunity for these anti-oppression patriots to protest governmental abuse.

Sure, armed white private citizens have been conspicuously absent from the struggle against actual governmental oppression in U.S. history Native American genocide, Jim Crow, womens subjugation, Japanese internment camps but things might be different this time, right?

After all, Open Carry Texas recently planned to educate the black residents of Houstons Fifth Ward about their gun rights by marching with semiautomatic rifles and a bullwhip through their residential streets, and gun rights activists frequently inform us that their struggle for guns everywhere is just like the struggle for black civil rights, because endangering the public with loaded firearms is, apparently, just like not being white.

So how did gun extremists react to the news that Darren Wilson would not face trial for killing an unarmed fellow citizen? Lets first turn to CJ Grisham, the head of Open Carry Texas whose Facebook profile photo shows him being arrested after he baited the police into a confrontation over a toy gun at the Texas Capitol, and who recently opined that three cop cars at the mall parking lot on Black Friday shows that America is a police state.

Racists will most likely begin rioting, wrote Grisham after the grand jury announcement. This is one of those instances I would stand in arms at the side of the police.

Meanwhile, Kory Watkins, Grishams fedora-sporting protg and head of Open Carry Tarrant County, marked the occasion of the Ferguson announcement by going cop-blocking, his new, crowd-funded freedumb hobby in which he monitors a police scanner, then shows up to pester the police with a camera and his gun, for which, notably, the police have never shot him. On the night of the Ferguson announcement Watkins and his well-regulated militia took to the streets of Arlington to warn misbehaving drivers of speed traps. Then, on his way home from fighting the oppression of traffic laws, Watkins was hit by a drunk driver and his car was totaled. Although he longs for a libertarian utopia in which all policing is performed by vigilantes, he called the police anyway and was slapped with a $300 ticket. I have no DL, he explained to his groupies. I dont ask permission to drive a car I paid for on a road I paid for, he said, before his acolytes opened a charity page to pay for his car.

Some hatriots actually showed up at protests around the country with guns predictably, they were there to menace protesters rather than to stand in solidarity against governmental oppression. Jumping at the possibility of hunting black people, Oath Keepers went to St. Louis and stood on rooftops threatening to shoot looters. In Dallas, the armed open carry group Come and Take It stalked protesters as they marched against the non-indictment, claiming to be protecting private property against riots, despite the fact that the marchers were peaceful and that nobody gave Come and Take It the legal authority to use lethal force to protect strangers property. This didnt stop right-wing media like Intellihub from claiming that the vigilantes prevented a looting free-for-all and race war on the streets of Dallas.

Other guns-everywhere patriots took to social media to post racist memes, swapping photos of monkeys swarming cars, doctored photos of Mike Browns body, and cops dispersing a crowd by dropping job applications on them generally relishing the fact that an armed agent of the government had gotten away with killing someone, and that a militarized police force was tear-gassing their fellow citizens. When a video showing a car barreling through nonviolent protesters went viral, liberty lovers in gun rights groups responded predictably: FUCK THEM!

I LOVE IT! FUCKING WORTHLESS MUNKEES wrote a gun extremist whose profile photo is a skull and whose cover photo is a picture of the baby Jesus. I was hoping youd see the windshield get holes from the inside out, commented the secret groups admin, who has aspirations to be a cop. Whats the difference between a deer in the road and black rioters? Nothing, you hit the gas for both, commented another. Later a news story broke about a pregnant black woman who was a passenger in a car in St. Louis and lost an eye when police shot her in the face with a beanbag. Commenters who regularly expose their children to guns said, Dont feel for the bitch at all. Call CPS endangerment of a child and Her pregnant ass should have been at home.

Ferguson provides us with yet more evidence that what gun extremists mean by freedom is really the freedom to insist on the special social and economic supremacy of armed white men its not about fighting oppression, its about violently intimidating a nation with changing demographics into recognizing the continued special status of white conservative men. When gun extremists see Wilson and Brown, they dont care about oppression because they dont see themselves as the oppressed party. They identify with the white man with the gun, because, for them, now as always, white and might make right.

See more here:

Gun nuts racial duplicity: How Ferguson and Garner undermined their Second Amendment crusade

World News – December 11, 2014 – Second Amendment, Intelligence Authorization Act & marijuana news – Video

Posted on by


World News - December 11, 2014 - Second Amendment, Intelligence Authorization Act marijuana news
Stories covered on this December 11, 2014 edition of the Nightly World News: -A recent Pew Research Center poll reveals support for the Second Amendment and ...

By: NoWorldOrder.com

See the rest here:

World News - December 11, 2014 - Second Amendment, Intelligence Authorization Act & marijuana news - Video

Scott of Rogue Reflections @Gavin Seim I-594, Second Amendment Rally in Olympia,WA – Video

Posted on by


Scott of Rogue Reflections @Gavin Seim I-594, Second Amendment Rally in Olympia,WA
Rogue Reflections https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYO3f6FE37dafWxL5kv314A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzKhVRzCrWY Gavin Seim sponsors I-594, Second Amendment Rally in ...

By: ekennye and linda

Original post:

Scott of Rogue Reflections @Gavin Seim I-594, Second Amendment Rally in Olympia,WA - Video

Second Circuit To Hear Oral Arguments On Gun Lawsuit

Posted on by

The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday will hear oral arguments in the case of Shew vs. Malloy, a legal challenge to the key provisions of Connecticut's post-Newtown gun control legislation.

The lawsuit, filed by a coalition of state gun owners, firearms dealers, and gun rights groups, seeks to overturn the assault weapons ban and the 10-round ammunition magazine limit that were enacted in 2013 as part of the legislature's response to the December 2012 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Gunman Adam Lanza killed 20 first-graders and six educators using a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle and high capacity ammunition magazines, both of which are illegal under the new law.

The law, which was described at the time of passage as the "toughest in the nation," was upheld in federal court in Connecticut last January. U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello wrote in the decision that "while the act burdens the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control."

The plaintiffs immediately appealed the decision. They argue in their complaint that the law is unconstitutionally vague, discriminatory, and infringes upon Second Amendment rights.

Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are commonly used in both shooting sports and self-defense, and thus subject to Second Amendment protection, the plaintiffs argue.

In a brief filed with the appeals court, the state countered that the law only bans "a small subset of firearms and large-capacity magazines that are disproportionately selected by criminals for use in gun crime."

The law's broadened definition of an assault weapon and new limit on magazine size, the state argues, is related to "an important governmental interest in ending gun violence and death."

The state argued that the law "leaves more than one thousand alternative firearms and magazines for law-abiding citizens to acquire and possess for self-defense." Weapons like the AR-15, they argued, "have no utility for legitimate self-defense and are not actually used for such purposes in practice."

The plaintiffs argue that the law is discriminatory because off-duty police and military personnel are exempt from the assault weapons ban and high-capacity ammunition magazine limit.

The definition of an assault weapon under the act is so vague that it leaves gun owners "without knowledge of what is prohibited," plaintiffs argue.

Continued here:

Second Circuit To Hear Oral Arguments On Gun Lawsuit

Parade Of Texas Open-Carry Bills Exposes Divide In Ranks

Posted on by

Updated: Monday, December 8 2014, 01:44 PM CST

by Morgan Smith, The Texas Tribune

As momentum grows behind a push to let Texans carry handguns openly, the biggest fight may be among Second Amendment advocates themselves.

A conflict is emerging over how far changes to the current state law should go, and some gun-rights supporters fear that the divide may sink efforts to lift handgun restrictions during the legislative session that begins in January.

"If the acrimony between the various groups gets too pronounced, then nothing will pass," said Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, who helped get the state's concealed handgun law passed in 1995, when he was a state senator. "Their challenge very simply is to recognize that the legislative process is designed to kill legislation and to drop their disagreements, even if it's not perfect."

The law allows the open carrying of long guns like rifles and shotguns. Texas is one of six states that specifically prohibit the open carrying of handguns, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

In the last two legislative sessions, Texas lawmakers have unsuccessfully pushed to allow handgun license holders to openly carry their firearms. Five nearly identical bills that would do that have already been filed.

A sixth, from state Rep. Jonathan Stickland, a Republican, would allow Texans to carry a handgun openly without a license.

"There are a lot of people who are sick and tired of paying a fee for their basic rights and liberties," Stickland said. "It's rejecting the notion that we need to beg government for permission to do things like protect ourselves."

Stickland's proposal has attracted the support of activists who object to the costs of obtaining a concealed handgun license and the restrictions the state places on applicants.

Read the original:

Parade Of Texas Open-Carry Bills Exposes Divide In Ranks

Parade Of Open-Carry Bills Exposes Divide In Ranks

Posted on by

As momentum grows behind a push to let Texans carry handguns openly, the biggest fight may be among Second Amendment advocates themselves.

A conflict is emerging over how far changes to the current state law should go, and some gun-rights supporters fear that the divide may sink efforts to lift handgun restrictions during the legislative session that begins in January.

If the acrimony between the various groups gets too pronounced, then nothing will pass, said Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, who helped get the states concealed handgun law passed in 1995, when he was a state senator. Their challenge very simply is to recognize that the legislative process is designed to kill legislation and to drop their disagreements, even if its not perfect.

The law allows the open carrying of long guns like rifles and shotguns. Texas is one of six states that specifically prohibit the open carrying of handguns, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

In the last two legislative sessions, Texas lawmakers have unsuccessfully pushed to allow handgun license holders to openly carry their firearms. Five nearly identical bills that would do that have already been filed.

A sixth, from state Rep. Jonathan Stickland, a Republican, would allow Texans to carry a handgun openly without a license.

There are a lot of people who are sick and tired of paying a fee for their basic rights and liberties, Stickland said. Its rejecting the notion that we need to beg government for permission to do things like protect ourselves.

Sticklands proposal has attracted the support of activists who object to the costs of obtaining a concealed handgun license and the restrictions the state places on applicants.

C.J. Grisham, a retired Army officer who founded Open Carry Texas last spring after he was arrested while walking near his home with an AR-15, said his group would oppose any bill that stopped short of allowing what he called the constitutional carry of handguns. (Grisham was fined $2,000.)

We will not compromise on our rights, he said. "We absolutely will not."

Here is the original post:

Parade Of Open-Carry Bills Exposes Divide In Ranks


  1. Second Amendment