VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(Marketwired - May 8, 2014) - (In United States dollars, except where noted otherwise)

Minera Panama ("MPSA") a subsidiary of First Quantum Minerals Ltd. ("First Quantum") (TSX:FM)(LSE:FQM) and Petaquilla Minerals Limited (TSX:PTQ) ("PTQ") today announced the execution of an amendment to the Commercial Agreement Term Sheet dated May 23, 2013 (" Second Amendment" ). MPSA is to pay PTQ up to $60 million for a transfer of a range of assets and property rights. The transaction ensures there will be a complete separation of the current operations of PTQ's Molejon Gold mine and the Cobre Panama copper project currently being developed by First Quantum.

$3.3 million is being paid on execution of the Second Amendment with an additional $46.7 million conditional on PTQ meeting specific deliverables before 6th July 2014. An additional $5 million is payable after one year conditional on certain approvals being granted with a final $5 million payable 30 days after the first ore shipment from the Cobre Panama project, provided PTQ has fulfilled all of the obligations and achieved all milestones as set out in the Second Amendment.

Key aspects of the Second Amendment include:

Execution of the Second Amendment ensures complete development and operational flexibility for the Cobre Panama project, provides MPSA ownership of all concession application areas surrounding the Molejon mining concession, and control of surface and access rights outside of the defined Molejon Gold mine area.

PTQ will continue the operations of the Molejon Gold production facility and Petaquilla Development Infrastructure will continue to operate its infrastructure within the Molejon Gold Project concession.

For further information visit our website at http://www.first-quantum.com.

On Behalf of the Board of Directors of First Quantum Minerals Ltd.

G. Clive Newall, President

12g3-2b-82-4461

Continue reading here:

Minera Panama S.A. and Petaquilla Minerals Limited Sign $60 Million Agreement

Published: Saturday, May 10, 2014, 9:00p.m. Updated 15 hours ago

Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens' argument about fixing the Second Amendment ( Fix the 2nd Amendment with 5 words ) rests on false premises.

First is that Newtown and other killing sprees could be curbed by more gun laws. Cities where strict gun laws coincide with high murder rates contradict this.

Second is that state legislatures have a valid power to infringe the people's right to bear arms. No, because the Second Amendment, as applied to the states by the 14th Amendment, prohibits this.

The right of self-defense is an inherent human right that is not granted by government; it precedes government. The Second Amendment protects a right that exists by natural law.

Finally, the right of the people to arm themselves against tyrants cannot be regulated by the would-be tyrants. Notice that it is usually the party of big government that seeks to disarm the people.

Brad Tupi

Upper St. Clair

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

Go here to read the rest:

Flawed argument I

The Second Amendment (Part 2 of 2)
"We the people" have been so focused on debating whether the Second Amendment "allows" us to own guns that we #39;ve overlooked the most important and most consi...

By: RutherfordInstitute

Originally posted here:

The Second Amendment (Part 2 of 2) - Video

Defenseless Nigerian Men, No Second Amendment #BringBackOurGirls Boku Haram
Defenseless Nigerian Men Without Second Amendment #BringBackOurGirls Boku Haram RT LIKE, POST SHARE! WATCH [VIDEO] SUBSCRIBE, JOIN OUR SOCIAL MEDIA NETWORKING, Click http://RastafariGroundation...

By: RastafariSabbathical

Continue reading here:

Defenseless Nigerian Men, No Second Amendment #BringBackOurGirls Boku Haram - Video

State Rep. Timothy Horrigan is blasting a proposed bill that would ban people from buying guns with their electronic benefits transfer cards, saying it violates their Second Amendment rights.

EBT cards are part of a system that allows people to use their welfare funds electronically. The proposal is part of Senate Bill 203, and would ban EBT card users from buying items such as alcohol, cigarettes and guns.

Inserting guns into the proposal has both Republicans and Democrats taking shots at each other.

Horrigan, a Democrat and an anti-gun politician, said he wants people on government assistance to be able to buy guns with the card.

Republicans said these are entitlement funds earmarked for food and other essentials instead of firearms.

State Rep. Bill OBrien, a Republican, said Horrigan has consistently voted for tougher gun laws and that his sudden concern with a persons Second Amendment right is a tactic to stall the bill.

They are using Second Amendment arguments to keep it from going through, OBrien said.

Horrigan said his concern is for peoples safety and their constitutional rights.

There may be cases where people need a gun for self-defense or target shooters. You cant buy a fancy gun or ammo, Horrigan said.

Horrigan said EBT cards are a small part of the state budget. The proposed measure must go through a committee during the summer to see if it will advance to the House floor for a vote.

Go here to read the rest:

Lawmakers divided on bill that restricts EBT use

Alan Gottlieb Supporting Compromise of your Second Amendment Rights

By: NationalGunRights

Read more:

Alan Gottlieb Supporting Compromise of your Second Amendment Rights - Video

A Guide to the Second AmendmentThe Second Amendment, or Amendment II, of the United States Constitution is the amendment and the section of the Bill of Rights that says that people have the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment was adopted into the United States Constitution on December 15, 1791, along with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights were introduced into the United States Constitution by James Madison.The Text of the Second AmendmentThere are two important versions of the text found in the Second Amendment, but the only differences are due to punctuation and capitalization. The text of the Second Amendment which is found in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the following:" 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."What Does the Second Amendment Mean?The Second Amendment is only a sentence long. However, there are some very important phrases that need to be carefully looked at. Here are some explanations for key phrases in the Second Amendment. Militia: During early American history, all males who were between the ages of sixteen to sixty were required to be a part of the local militia in their towns and communities.Almost everyone during this time used and owned guns.The few men who did not use or own a gun were required by law to pay a small fee instead of participating in the military services of their communities.These militias defended the communities against Indian raids and revolved, acted as a police force when it was needed, and was also available to be called upon to defense either the State or of the United States of America if it was needed.Bear arms: When the Second Amendment was written, arms meant weapons. The word arms did not necessarily only mean guns, but it definitely included guns. The Second Amendment did not specifically explain what categories or types of arms nor did it list what weapons were considered arms. When you bear arms, this means you physically carry weapon. You may have arms in your home as well as on your person.Shall not be infringed:The Second Amendment does not grant any right to bear arms. Furthermore, the rest of the Bill of Rights does not describe any right to do so. These rights are thought of as natural rights or God-given rights.In the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment is just a reminder to the government that they should not try to stop people from having this right.

A Guide to the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment, or Amendment II, of the United States Constitution is the amendment and the section of the Bill of Rights that says that people have the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment was adopted into the United States Constitution on December 15, 1791, along with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights were introduced into the United States Constitution by James Madison.

The Text of the Second Amendment

There are two important versions of the text found in the Second Amendment, but the only differences are due to punctuation and capitalization. The text of the Second Amendment which is found in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the following:

" 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."

What Does the Second Amendment Mean?

The Second Amendment is only a sentence long. However, there are some very important phrases that need to be carefully looked at. Here are some explanations for key phrases in the Second Amendment.

Militia: During early American history, all males who were between the ages of sixteen to sixty were required to be a part of the local militia in their towns and communities. Almost everyone during this time used and owned guns. The few men who did not use or own a gun were required by law to pay a small fee instead of participating in the military services of their communities. These militias defended the communities against Indian raids and revolved, acted as a police force when it was needed, and was also available to be called upon to defense either the State or of the United States of America if it was needed.

Bear arms: When the Second Amendment was written, arms meant weapons. The word arms did not necessarily only mean guns, but it definitely included guns. The Second Amendment did not specifically explain what categories or types of arms nor did it list what weapons were considered arms. When you bear arms, this means you physically carry weapon. You may have arms in your home as well as on your person.

See the original post:

Second Amendment - Laws

Originally published May 7, 2014 at 7:05 PM | Page modified May 8, 2014 at 12:02 AM

History, politics and law are all tangled up in contemporary court interpretations and public understanding of the Second Amendment, and politics is the greater part of the mix these days.

Last week, I wrote that weve so misread the amendment that maybe we ought to get rid of it. Thats certainly not on the horizon, but the idea drew a strong response and suggested to me that a review of the amendments history might be helpful. (Some of the responses also reinforced my belief there are many people who should not be allowed anywhere near a gun. What does racist name calling have to do with gun rights anyway?)

One theme that ran through comments supportive of unrestricted gun-ownership rights was that it is necessary for individuals to own guns to protect themselves against both crime and the U.S. government, and that the framers of the Constitution intended for the amendment to protect that individual right.

Thats a new way of reading the amendment.

I heard from Michael Schein, an attorney who handles appeals and who taught American legal history for 15 years at the University of Puget Sound and Seattle University.

Dont blame the framers, he wrote. For 217 years, the law under the 2nd Amendment was that it only protected possession or use of a firearm by well-regulated militia forces. ... It contained no right of personal self-defense until 2008, when the Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote brought that interpretation to its ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which limited the Districts gun-regulation law.

Wednesday I called Schein, and we talked about the amendments history and current interpretation. Its heavily politicized and wrapped up in peoples emotions, so its difficult to get to the facts underlying it in any objective way, he said.

The Constitution was written to create a more effective federal government, but some people worried the government would trample on the rights of states and individuals. The Bill of Rights was intended to mollify them and make ratification of the Constitution possible. Some were particularly concerned that the federal government would form a standing army, and they wanted assurances that state militias would be in a position to fight against such an army if it came to that.

James Madison was tasked with drafting the amendments. Some of the states had asked for a personal right in one amendment, but he didnt include that. Instead he used a version of Virginia law that dealt with militias.

Read the original:

Second Amendment in real time boils down to politics

Gun Depot USA Second amendment target shooting.
Target shooting in a sand pit.Sorry no GPS on where ,it will remain to be a hidden range.

By: Preston Sousa

The rest is here:

Gun Depot USA Second amendment target shooting. - Video

Yen on Second Amendment

By: Ervin Yen

Read the original post:

Yen on Second Amendment - Video

Second Amendment Shootout
K-State College Republicans held the annual second amendment shootout in support of the right to bear arms.

By: Jason Beets

See the article here:

Second Amendment Shootout - Video

WASHINGTON - The US Supreme Court on Monday refused to take up a case over whether Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms in public.

It comes amid a rumbling and divisive debate between pro- and anti-gun lobbies after several high-profile shootings or massacres in recent years.

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution gives citizens the right to bear arms, but states have enacted various laws governing gun ownership.

John Drake, who operates an ATM business, was challenging a strict New Jersey state law that requires people wanting to carry a handgun outside the home to demonstrate a "justifiable need."

Backed by the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA), Drake argued that his employees need to be able to defend themselves because they are carrying large sums of money.

The NRA said in its argument backing Drake: "The Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry weapons for the purpose of self-defence - not just for self-defence within the home, but for self-defence - period."

It added that the "right to bear arms for self-defence" was "as important outside the home as inside."

In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to possess a gun at home for self-defence.

But in dismissing the complaint, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court of appeal decision stating that the New Jersey law is consistent with the Second Amendment.

It has declined to hear similar challenges to the concealed carry laws of New York and Maryland.

Original post:

US Supreme Court refuses to consider gun-rights case

Get Breaking News First

Receive News, Politics, and Entertainment Headlines Each Morning.

TALLAHASSEE (CBSMiami/AP) Gun owners and defenders of the second amendment saw success during the 2014Floridalegislative session, but one battle is still being waged.

Major wins came in the form of the warning-shot bill which protects people from mandatory sentences when they threaten to use a weapon in self-defense and the pop-tart bill that keeps children from being punished for playing with imaginary guns or wearing clothing with images of firearms.

The biggest loss was legislation to extend carry and conceal privileges during a declared state of emergency. The bill was killed, in part, by a late push from theFloridaSheriffs Association.

Those who hoped to see changes in the stand your ground law were left empty-handed.

I told my constituents when I left to come to Tallahassee that the second amendment would be safe, said Sen. Greg Evers, R-Pensacola. I feel reasonably sure that we held true to that. In fact, we made some headway. The second amendment is definitely safe, so my folks back home are going to be happy.

Both Evers and Marion Hammer, a lobbyist and former NRA president, said the carry-and-conceal issue is not going away.

The sheriffs association argued that the language in the bill (SB 296) was too open-ended and left room for interpretation without time and place specifications. Hammer called that argument just a smoke screen.

It was never about anything other than their convenience and the fact they didnt want citizens carrying guns, Hammer said.

Read more here:

Success For Gun Owners & 2nd Amendment Defenders In 2014

Posted Mon, May 5th, 2014 12:00 pm by Lyle Denniston

Two areas of the law where the Supreme Court made major pronouncements, and then all but dropped the subject, continued on Monday to remain off the Courts decision docket. One wasthe intensifying controversy over Second Amendment rights; the other was the lingering controversy over the fate of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Without comment, the Court denied review of new cases, keeping intact a lengthening list of refusals.

Since the Courts 2008 decision declaring a personal right to have a gun under the Second Amendment, and its 2010 decision expanding that right nationwide, the Justices have steadfastly refused to say anything more about how far that right extends. And since its 2008 decision giving Guantanamo Bay detainees a right to go to court to protesttheir prolonged imprisonment, it has routinely denied pleasto spell out how that ruling should be applied.

The pattern continued on Monday, as the Justices without explanation and with no dissenting votes recorded chose not to take on the Second Amendment case of Drake v. Jerejian, or the Guantanamo case of Al Warafi v. Obama.

Only two explanations seem plausible: either the Court is content to let lower courts work out the details of gun rights and detention authority, or the Justices are hesitating to take on a new case because they are not sure how the votes will be cast on final decisions.

Probably the biggest question overhanging the Second Amendment is whether the right to have a gun for personal self-defense exists outside the home. Some courts have said yes, some have said no, and some have not been sure either way. That was the issue raised in the Drake case, seeking to test a New Jersey law that requires an individual who wants to carry a handgun in public to get a permit to do so; to obtain such a permit, one has to convince officials that the person has a justifiable need for that privilege.

There is a clear split among federal appeals courts on the outside-the-home issue. In the Drake case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found no Second Amendment violation with the handgun permit law.

Probably the biggest question overhanging Guantanamo Bay prisoners that is, those being held there who are not being prosecuted for any crimes is whether and how long they can be kept there if they did not actively engage in armed conflict against the U.S. or its allies before they were captured. Justice Stephen G. Breyer signaled in a recent opinion that this is an open question.

And that appeared to be the situation in the new Al Warafi case. He and his lawyers have insisted that he went to Afghanistan to act as a medical worker, in clinics and hospitals, and his stint with Taliban forces was only as a medical aide. His detention was upheld by lower courts, however, because he was found to have been a part of the Taliban terrorist network regardless whether he had engaged in armed hostilities himself.

Those denials came among a series of orders the Court issued before beginning a two-week recess. Here, in summary, were some of the other actions:

Read more from the original source:

Staying away from guns and Gitmo

While the media attention will focus on the Supreme Courts ruling inTown of Greece v. Galloway the legislative-prayer case the more interesting (and consequential) decision issued today was the Courts denial of review inDrake v. Jerejian, the Second Amendment case I previously discussed here. InDrake, the lower federal courts upheld an outrageous New Jersey law that denies the right to bear arms outside the home for self-defense just like the D.C. law at issue inDistrict of Columbia v. Heller denied the right to keep arms inside the home and today the Supreme Court let them get away with it.

Drake is but the latest in a series of cases that challenge the most restrictive state laws regarding the right to armed self-defense. Although the Supreme Court in Hellerdeclared that the Second Amendment protects an individual constitutional right, lower federal courts with jurisdiction over states like Maryland and New York have been willfully confused about the scope of that right, declining to protect it outsideHellers particular facts (a complete ban on functional firearms in the home).Its as if the Supreme Court announced that the First Amendment protects an individual right to blog about politics from your home computer, but then some lower courts allowed states to ban political blogging from your local Starbucks.

Yet each time, the Supreme Court has denied review.

New Jerseys is perhaps the most egregious restriction. In the Garden State, local law enforcement officials have full discretion to grant or deny a license to carry a firearm, which they may issue only if the applicant can prove a justifiable need (which in practice means aspecific, immediate threat to ones safety that cant be avoided in any way other than through possession of a handgun). Then, even if a local police chiefapproves a carry permit, the application goes to a judge for a hearing, during which the local prosecutor can oppose the permit. And even if the would-be gun-owner can successfully run that gauntlet, she gets a permit for two years, at which point she must repeat the entire process.

The dual review by two different branches of government is unusually burdensome, to say the least, and distinguishes New Jerseys approach in addition to the extreme definition of justifiable need from every other permitting regime in the country.Can you imagine the exercise of any other constitutional right being handled this way?

The effect of this regulatory scheme is that virtually nobody in New Jersey can use a handgun to defend themselves outside their home. The state law inverts how fundamental rights are supposed to work that the government must justify restrictions, not the right-holder the exercise and apparently the Supreme Court has no problem with that.

The lower court in Drakeapplied a deferential review far from the heightened scrutiny normally due an individual right enshrined in the Bill of Rights. It also assumed the legislatures good faith without requiring the state to show any evidence that a prohibitive-carry regime lowers the rate of gun crime, and excused what constitutional infringements the law causes because legislators acted beforeHellerclarified that the Second Amendment protected an individual right. To continue my previous analogy, its like a state law banning political blogging survived judicial review because the definitive Supreme Court ruling finding an individual right to political blogging didnt come down till after the state law was enacted.

What kind of a bizarro world are we living in where this is ok?

In Catos amicus brief inDrake, we posed an alternate question presented (legalese for the issue that a brief asks a court to resolve):

Was this Court serious in District of Columbia v. Heller when it ruled that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms?

Read more:

Supreme Court Wasnt Serious about the Second Amendment

The U.S. Supreme Court left intact a New Jersey law that requires a justifiable need to carry a handgun in public, sidestepping a dispute over the scope of the Constitutions gun-rights protections.

The justices today turned away an appeal by four New Jersey residents and two organizations, which said the Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry a weapon for self-defense. A federal appeals court upheld the New Jersey measure.

The high court hasnt taken up a gun-rights case since 2010, repeatedly rejecting appeals centering on the Second Amendments reach outside the home.

The Supreme Court has shown no interest in returning to the Second Amendment over the past few years, said Adam Winkler, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law and the author of a book on the history of the gun-rights battle. The justices may be indicating a reluctance to expand Second Amendment rights in the wake of recent mass shootings, he said.

New Jersey is one of seven states that require an applicant to show a special need to get a permit to carry a handgun. That group includes California, whose rules are now before a federal appeals court, and New York, whose law the justices left intact a year ago.

The Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry weapons for the purpose of self-defense -- not just for self-defense within the home but for self-defense, period, the National Rifle Association argued in a brief backing the appeal.

Many states have relaxed their public-possession restrictions in recent years. In 1981, just three -- Maine, Washington and Vermont -- let ordinary residents carry firearms in public without giving a reason.

In upholding the New Jersey law on a 2-1 vote, the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the measure was valid even if the Second Amendment applies outside the home. The appeals court pointed to a passage in a 2008 Supreme Court decision that said some longstanding gun restrictions were presumptively lawful.

The panel said New Jersey has had the justifiable need standard in some form since 1924.

New Jerseys legislature, long ago, made the predictive judgment that widespread carrying of handguns in public would not be consistent with public safety because of the inherent danger it poses, New Jersey officials, led by Acting Attorney General John Hoffman, argued in court papers that urged the court to reject the appeal.

See the rest here:

New Jersey Gun-Carrying Limit Left Intact by High Court

The Second Amendment (Part 1 of 2)
You can largely determine where a person will fall in the debate over gun control and the Second Amendment based on their view of government and the role it should play in our lives. Ultimately,...

By: RutherfordInstitute

See the article here:

The Second Amendment (Part 1 of 2) - Video

Members of the local chapter of Come and Take It Texas participated in an open carry demonstration Saturday afternoon near UTEP. (Ruben R. Ramirez / El Paso Times)

The local chapter of a state organization that supports the right of people to openly carry firearms participated in a statewide march on Saturday.

Twenty members of Come and Take It Texas walked from Mesa Street and Cincinnati Avenue toward Mesa and Rim Road holding the Texas Flag and openly carrying several rifles, shotguns and pre-1899 black powder hand guns.

They placed the guns in holsters while marching.

The organization's purpose is to educate people about their Second Amendment right to openly carry firearms in public in a responsible manner and encourage elected officials to pass less restrictive open-carry laws, said Jose Alberto Soto, administrator for the El Paso Chapter of Come and Take it Texas.

El Paso Police Department officials said they were aware the group was conducting the march and that the coordinators informed officials about it ahead of time.

Police said no arrests were made because the protesters were not breaking any laws.

More here:

Second Amendment group marches in El Paso

Billy Johnson for NRA News: "Infringed Rights"
Billy Johnson examines the erosion of constitutional rights in America and the need to stand firm on the Second Amendment. Tune in to http://www.NRANews.com/Commentators for more episodes.

By: NRA

Continued here:

Billy Johnson for NRA News: "Infringed Rights" - Video

My thanks to Times columnist Jerry Large for his common sense call for repeal of the Second Amendment [Common sense calls for repeal of Second Amendment, Local News, May 1]. It begins with A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state These phrases have been thought to be only introductory and therefore not having the force of law.

That thought apparently does not consider late-18th century U.S. military history. The standing army, then called the Continental Army, was very small and incapable of significant warfare. To be effective, it was augmented by state and local militias, including some organized and funded by prominent individuals.

Most militia enlistees came from rural areas and owned rifles or other weapons with which to obtain food and protect livestock from predators. Many enlistments provided for them to arm themselves with those weapons a provision that added significantly to the armaments of the militias and was the main purpose for the Second Amendment, which established the peoples right to keep and bear arms.

Now we have a large, powerful standing army supported by a large, well-armed national guard. Militias, with their short-term enlistments and rifles brought from home, exist only in memory negating the need the Second Amendment.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Congress has been bought and paid for by the National Rifle Association.

Harry Petersen, Bellevue

Read the rest here:

Gun rights: Times have changed since the creation of the Second Amendment