Daily Archives: January 23, 2020

LUMBERTON Two state lawmakers want to see Robeson and Columbus join the growing ranks of North Carolina counties that have approved Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions.

State Sen. Danny Britt Jr., a Republican from Lumberton, plans bring up the issue of a Robeson County resolution that protects the right to keep and bear arms during the Feb. 3 or Feb. 17 meeting of the Robeson County Board of Commissioners.

Britt also said Wednesday that he supports state Rep. Brenden Jones effort to get a similar resolution approved in Columbus County.

I spoke with Sen. Britt this morning and he asked it he could be on the agenda at the next meeting, said Lance Herndon, chairman of the Board of Commissioners.

Britt told him he wants to speak about issues from around the country regarding the Second Amendment, Herndon said. He appeared receptive.

I dont think it would be a negative, Herndon said. The Second Amendment is part of the U.S. Constitution and we are sworn to uphold it.

Jones, a Republican who represents Columbus and Robeson counties, asked the Columbus County Board of Commissioners on Tuesday to designate Columbus County a Second Amendment Sanctuary.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 30 of the North Carolina Constitution expressly protect the peoples right to keep and bear arms, Jones said. Recent gun control efforts by those around the country, however, have led various counties and towns to take a proactive stance to ensure there is no infringement upon this constitutional right. As a result, passing or enacting a resolution of this kind would work to oppose restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

The resolution Jones proposed would state that no county resources, or that of any Columbus County municipality, are to be used in the disarmament of any county resident.

Furthermore, if such sanctuary measures were passed or enacted, the Columbus County Board of Commissioners would be expressing their deepest commitment in protecting the constitutional right of all citizens in Columbus County to keep and bear arms, Jones said.

Jones proposed resolution commits the county government to protect the rights of Columbus County residents rights to bear arms.

P. Edwin Russ, Columbus County Board of Commissioners chairman, said Wednesday that Jones was heard by the board members and his proposal was discussed.

We had one commissioner ask a lot of questions, Russ said.

The discussion was for information purposes only and no action on the proposal was taken by the board, he said. However, County Attorney Amanda Prince is studying the issue with the goal of drawing up a Second Amendment Sanctuary Resolution for the commissioners to consider.

I feel sure it will pass at our next meeting, which is Feb. 3, Russ said.

There is no guarantee that the amendment question will be on the Feb. 3 agenda, said Clerk to the Board June Hall. A pre-agenda meeting is held a week before each board meeting, and items sometimes are taken off the agenda.

If approved, Columbus County would be the ninth North Carolina county to adopt a Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution. According to Jones and news reports, Alexander, Cabarrus, Cherokee, Cleveland, Catawba, Lincoln, Rutherford and Union counties already have approved similar resolutions.

Gun-right advocates across the country have been mobilizing to protect what they say is a consitutional right. On Virginia, 22,000 people marched on the Capitol in Virginia to express concerns about proposed legislation that they say would cut back on some of their gun-ownership rights. Despite widespread worry that it would become violent, it remained peaceful, with just two people arrested on minor charges.

Reach T.C. Hunter via email at [emailprotected] or by calling 910-816-1974.

Read more:
Britt wants Robeson as Second Amendment Sanctuary - The Robesonian

NEWAYGO, Mich. Some citizens in Newaygo County are pushing to become a sanctuary county when it comes to the second amendment. Its similar to a resolution being considered in Ionia County.

Ionia County tabled their discussion on their resolution to give the prosecutor and sheriff more time to look it over. Citizens in Newaygo County are hoping for a similar plan meant to protect peoples right to bear arms.

To me, it seems like our 2nd amendment rights are being infringed upon by other groups wanting to take our rights away," Mike Hikade said.

Thats why Hikade volunteered to lead the group in Newaygo County interested in making it a sanctuary county for the 2nd amendment.

It just seems that because of unfortunate incidences that have happened that all of a sudden the thing they want to do is take guns away from people," he said.

Hikade says his efforts started with a Change.org petition to gauge interest in the idea. Now he says he turned in a petition to the county board with more than 500 signatures in support.

He says the goal is to ensure the second amendment is upheld in Newaygo County should any gun control legislation be passed at the state or federal level.

"To me, this just reinforces that right, Hikade said.

Wednesday morning, county commissioners listened to a member of the second amendment groups presentation.

Newaygo County commissioner and board chairman Bryan Kolk told FOX 17, I think what theyre asking us to do is to follow the constitution in how those laws are enforced should there be something that would be considered a non-constitutional law passed."

He added, "Now, the board of commissioners... it does not tell the sheriff or the prosecutors office how they run their office. So we cant dictate to them how they would enforce this.

Kolk says all the commissioners have already taken an oath to uphold the constitution.

At this point, well take a look at what he presented to us and if we decide we like what we see and if weve given this the right time then well probably bring this forward," he said.

Hikade said, The way I look at this too, to me I want to consider part of this piece to be education about why firearms are needed or why its necessary to do this.

The board chairman says the next step is for a board member to take up the resolution to consider it for a adoption if a commissioner chooses to do so.

Read this article:
Newaygo County citizens petition board to become '2nd amendment sanctuary county' - Fox17

Dear Editor:

Why did our Founders add the right to bear arms to our Bill of Rights? It was because some felt that without this guarantee, the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.

So New York state, under the leadership of liberal elected officials, has shackled its citizens with gun-control legislation. What is the reason? is New York state leading the way for state control of constitutional rights? Given the control of the state by Democratic, liberal elected and appointed officials and the new changes in our judicial bail system, one can only wonder: Are we heading toward a state government that will try to eliminate our freedom?

The U.S Supreme Court, in its 2008 ruling inDistrict of Columbia v. Heller, held that the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense, within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the nation, but to states and municipalities.

The court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nations scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and the court, in the Heller ruling, held that individual self-defense was the central component of the Second Amendment right.

Protect your rights.

Joseph Izzo

Catskill, N.Y.

Original post:
LETTER: NY state law defies Second Amendment and right to bear arms - The Daily Freeman

Had 22,000 people showed up in Richmond, Virginia, to demand stronger gun control laws, it is a safe bet that proponents of them would pronounced the crowd to be conclusive proof most Americans want such restrictions.

But when a group estimated at that size demonstrated on Monday against new firearms ownership limits, some gun control advocates insisted the crowd was small and evidence not many people worry about Second Amendment rights.

I was prepared to see a whole lot more people show up than actually did, and I think its an indication that a lot of this rhetoric is bluster, quite frankly, commented state Delegate Chris Hurst, a Democrat representing an area in western Virginia. In fairness to Hurst, it needs to be noted he has a personal stake in gun control; in 2015, his television journalist girlfriend was killed in shooting.

More than bluster was on display Monday in Richmond, however. As The Associated Press noted, those who turned out to protest what they view as infringements upon Second Amendment rights did so in spite of very cold weather. They came from throughout Virginia, as well as some other states.

Prior to the rally, state officials including Gov. Ralph Northam had expressed concern about white supremacists attending the event. Members of some such groups did attend, according to observers but the rally passed peacefully. There was just one arrest, of a woman who broke a state law by wearing a mask that covered her face.

What happened Monday in Richmond was a demonstration that many law-abiding citizens representing millions of other like-minded Americans are concerned about politicians who continue assaulting the Second Amendment. Officials in the Old Dominion, as well as elsewhere, shoud take note of that.

Puerto Rican Gov. Wanda Vasquez is fighting back against the corruption and inefficiency that has hindered efforts ...

Many Americans became heroes on Dec. 7, 1941, during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. One of them, a Navy mess ...

Today, Monday, Jan. 20, is Martin Luther King Jr. Day, a day to celebrate Kings birthday and honor his legacy ...

"Give me your lunch money or Ill beat you up, says the school yard bully. So do Iranian leaders, this ...

If you doubt that too many Americans have become preoccupied with President Donald Trump, either favorably or ...

With the ball in the U.S. Senates court regarding an impeachment trial for President Donald Trump, a rather ...

Read this article:
Fighting off assaults on Second Amendment | News, Sports, Jobs - Minot Daily News

IONIA A resolution to make Ionia County a Second Amendment sanctuary was tabled Tuesday after discussion with the county prosecutor and sheriff.

The Ionia County Board of Commissioners at its Jan. 21 meeting had an agenda item for a resolution making the county a Second Amendment sanctuary. Last week, resident Randy Schmid approached the board last week proposing the resolution after bills regulating gun control were introduced by the Democratic majority in the Virginia legislature leading to counties declaring themselves as "sanctuaries" that support the right to bear arms.

Ionia County District One Commissioner and Chair David Hodges invited Prosecutor Kyle Butler and Sheriff Charlie Noll to speak before the board took action. Their titles are mentioned in the proposed resolution.

Butler indicated he supports the Second Amendment and is a gun owner, but said I need to put my legal hat on. He said he and Noll have taken oaths to uphold the Constitution, but that the Constitution is not an exact science and that he wasnt sure it was time to go forward with the resolution.

It doesnt feel like theres been a vetting process of this resolution, Butler said.

Butler encouraged the board to speak with him, Noll and the county attorney before moving forward with a decision. Noll said he supports the right to bear arms but also agreed with Butler.

Butler thinks there needs to be more thought that goes into it before a vote is made.

It just strikes me as shocking that, frankly, the sheriff and I havent been consulted about this and I dont believe the county lawyer really hasnt been necessarily consulting about this much either, Butler said. Thats surprising to me.

Butler also said he and Noll are elected officials and the county board doesnt have control over decisions beside budgets.

This resolution almost seems to blur that separate distinct bodies, Butler said.

Were elected, were independent and were going to uphold the Constitution as were supposed to do, Noll said.

District Five Commissioner Scott Wirtz said he was OK with Butler and Noll speaking with their peers in other counties and send the resolution back to the county attorney.

Lynn Mason of the Ionia County Democratic Party spoke during public comment opposing the resolution, saying there needs to be a public hearing. Deb Smith, the concealed pistol license clerk from Ionia County, called the resolution pretty vague."

Scott Parmalee, a District Seven resident, is the chairperson for Michigan for Second Amendment sanctuary counties group. It started as a Facebook group and has accumulated more 73,000 members since Christmas 2019 for the Second Amendment.

As a group we see the Second Amendment is under attack across the country, Parmalee said.

During the second public comment, Parmalee said the resolution was not supposed to be a binding document that holds weight over state or federal law. He said the goal is for Michigan to not become Virginia especially in light of the upcoming 2020 election.

Contact reporter Evan Sasiela at esasiela@sentinel-standard.com. Follow him on Twitter @SalsaEvan.

More:
Prosecutor, sheriff concerned over Second Amendment sanctuary resolution - Sentinel-Standard

Gaston County could soon be added to a growing list of local governments vowing to oppose gun control efforts they view as unconstitutional.

Tracy Philbeck, chairman of the Gaston County Board of Commissioners, said he's sponsoring a resolution with Commissioners Chad Brown and Allen Fraley to designate Gaston County a "Second Amendment sanctuary."

It's a move to publicly protect a county residents right to keep and bear arms, supporters say. Commissioners will vote Jan. 28.

"As of right now you can say it's largely symbolic," Philbeck said. "Don't underestimate, though, if we have to we will act. As long as I'm chairman of the commission I will not support any law or ordinance that goes against the constitutional right of folks to bear arms."

The resolution states support for the Second Amendment and, "to oppose, within the limits of the Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Carolina, any efforts to unconstitutionally restrict such rights..."

Resolutions have been approved by counties across the country, including most recently in Lincoln County.

Philbeck and Chad Brown called the move a precautionary measure made necessary by the passage of new gun measures in states like Virginia and Colorado.

"I'm proud to be a sponsor on this," Chad Brown said. "Our constitution has been chipped away at by the liberal left and this is simply us saying we don't want anymore slices taken from the constitution."

Point of view matters

Duke University Law Professor Darrell Miller writes and teaches in the area of civil right and constitutional law, with emphasis on the Second and Thirteenth Amendments.

He's also written extensively about District of Columbia V. Heller, a landmark Supreme Court decision in 2008 that views the Second Amendment as protecting an individuals right to own firearms for lawful purposes like self-defense within the home.

He wrote last summer that Second Amendment sanctuary efforts in Colorado - that largely opposed so-called "red flag" laws that could allow law enforcement or families to petition courts to remove firearms from those who could be a danger to themselves or others - could be regarded as efforts to "mobilize citizens in an act of constitution-making outside of the courts," particularly in cases where courts have yet to rule on the laws in question.

In response to questions last week, Miller said the Second Amendment sanctuary movement, at its core, is an effort by local governments to use constitutional framing of their enactments to affect policy and law.

"Given there's no gun violence prevention proposals with any realistic chance of making it through the current General Assembly in N.C., it seems the immediate effect of this effort in N.C. would be to show solidarity with gun-rights activists in Virginia and elsewhere, and to act as an announcement of non-compliance if there's a change of control in Raleigh," Miller wrote.

Greg Wallace, a professor of law at Campbell University School of Law, said the Second Amendment sanctuary movement could be indicative of conflict between state and federal obligations.

"I think firearms owners see very extreme measures being proposed by gun control proponents that really aren't aimed at just the criminal misuse of guns but aimed much more broadly," Wallace said.

He said state and county officials must uphold state law, duties that could clash with constitutional obligations.

"There has been a long history of government officials, particularly in the executive branch, saying 'OK if the state legislature has passed a law that we believe in good faith is unconstitutional, we don't have an obligation to enforce it," Wallace said. "That comes in part from the oaths these officers take to support the constitution first. There's a long tradition of civil resistance."

Wallace said such efforts could leave officials open to legal action, including lawsuits and potential removal from office.

"There is a risk in it for them," Wallace said. "But the flip side, if so many communities sign on to this what's the enforcement mechanism the state is going to use? That's an open question."

Commissioners, including Bob Hovis, Tom Keigher, Jack Brown and Ronnie Worley voiced support for the Second Amendment sanctuary measure.

Gaston County Democratic Party Chairman Daniel Caudill and Democratic Party county commission candidate Ray Raynor, view the measure as unnecessary.

"I see the symbolism they're going for," according to Caudill, a U.S. Army veteran and gun owner. "We're scratching our heads knowing that sanctuary ordinances don't supersede state or federal law. I think there's more effective things they could be working on for the county."

Gaston County District Attorney Locke Bell said he would neither support nor oppose the resolution, citing the constitution as protection enough.

"I'm a firm believer in the Second Amendment and I own numerous firearms," Bell said. "I'm not sure this movement by the commissioners is needed. We already have the Second Amendment protecting us here in Gaston County and I think that is sufficient."

Reach Adam Orr at 704-869-1828 or aorr@gastongazette.com

See the rest here:
Gaston Commissioners to vote on Second Amendment sanctuary proposal - Gaston Gazette

I attended the pro-Second Amendment rally this week in Richmond, Virginia. My hotel is approximately six blocks from where the event transpired, so it was an easy walk.

On the walk from my hotel to the event, I fell in with many other attendees. Vendors were manifold, and some were journeyman classicists: Gadsden flags, and paraphernalia adorned with the Gadsden snake and motto, barely outpaced Molon Labe and Sic Semper Tyrannis adornments to the naked eye. Many vendors entrepreneurially hawked Donald Trump and MAGA wares; however, regardless of the product, I did not see much business transacted.

The crowd thickened well before the security perimeter to get into the event. At one point, my progress came to a halt before I realized that I was in the gaggle of lines to access the Porto-O-Potties. The area wide around the Capitol grounds was, to borrow from the immortal Waylon Jennings, filled up with law. The barricades, police cruisers, and vans forced the crowds into very tight siphoning toward the formal event; however, no signage directed attendees to anything at all, much less the location of the event.

Carry, whether concealed or open, was not allowed inside the fenced perimeter. That did not stop numerous persons from carrying openly outside the perimeter. I saw one individual sporting a 1911 in a thigh rig, but the overwhelming carry of choice was the standard AR-15. Of note, because I do not suspect this will be reported: A strong number of the folks carrying ARs also had medical or first aid kits on their persons. These were not individuals anticipating offensive action; these individuals were prepared to help.

Ive never been through security like what I went through then, and that includes international travel. The logjam to get in was considerable due to the thoroughness of the security searches. I asked the special agent in my line if I needed to remove everything from my pockets, or just metallic items. He responded that everything needed to be removed.

I smiled as I pulled out, amongst other things, two granola bars: Dont confiscate my lunch, officer. He chuckled and said that granola bars just got added to the prohibited items list.

After removing jacket and pocketed items, I walked through a scanner and was still wanded completely by another Virginia State Police officer. I quipped that nobody got a day off today. He looked at me, and this is my impression, with exasperation: Not a single person in our entire force has today off.

The Virginia State Police were cordial, professional, patient, and even frequently friendly. I chatted with a number of them and saw others engage them even more. After the event, attendees shook hands, patted shoulders, and touched elbows of VSP officers and thanked them for being there. That wasnt occasional; a vast number of attendees did so.

The officers I witnessed returned thanks and stated that attendees made their jobs easy. They are, of course, correct.

The crowd inside was diverse, cheerful, raucous, and behaved. Signage abounded, and much of it was clever. Manifold families were present with children, blankets, and foodstuffs. The Virginia Citizens Defense League, which has hosted this event for well nigh 20 years, has a round and hunter orange sticker that reads, Guns Save Lives. Almost every attendee sported one.

At the end of the event, we all picked up after ourselves. I anticipated this activity, so did not take this sticker, or any other, so that the detritus I removed from the grounds would be minimal. Thats my confession. I now look forward to skipping church this week.

Shooters could be observed on the rooftops of the surrounding buildings. Three helicopters hovered.

Several distinct groups could be distinguished. A group from Pennsylvania sported signs that read, Dont VA PA. Harsh, but fair. Texans carried the familiar Come and take it cannon flag. One gaggle carried the An Appeal To Heaven flag. The Pink Pistols, a national LGBT pro-gun group, was present, as was the African-American Black Guns Matter group. An untold number of signs reminded everyone that gun rights are womens rights and that firearms are the great equalizers.

The speakers were as you would expect and almost an afterthought. One made a joke about Jeffrey Epstein not killing himself. One chided those who attended but did not vote last November. One encouraged each attendee to bring 100 persons to the voting booth in November for Trump. The sound system was woeful and the cheers perfunctory. This aspect of the rally has been the meat and potatoes of the past 18 annual gatherings; they were an accessory today.

Leaving the fenced in area was difficult. Two of the entries were closed off, such that the gathering exited through one barricaded siphon. When multiple attendees asked officers why, the officers uniformly replied that they were not sure, as they were not told the rationale behind the change. It was, quite frankly, a disaster waiting to happen and Im grateful it didnt.

I saw no medical personnel until I was three blocks away, not from the fenced perimeter, but from the informal and rough boundaries of the outside gathering. The law enforcement presence was overwhelming but medical provision was inappropriately low.

However large the crowd was, the attendees stayed on message. I saw one anti-abortion flag, one anti-taxation flag, and a fair amount of Trump material. But so many protests, regardless of the stated issue, draw so many differing causes, some of which are conflicting. Not so then. The thousands of persons in attendance were there for one reason.

A group of roughly ten persons made their way inside the perimeter and marched around chanting that the revolution is now and white supremacy will not prevail and a better world can be had without guns. Many attendees took their picture and laughed, but no one engaged. Run a quick mental exercise involving a mass Antifa rally with ten pro-gun persons parading through and imagine the result.

All in all, it was a very good day. A large group of people assembled peaceably to air their grievances and to state that, unless something changes, our consent to be governed is being revoked. Heres hoping that those in the Virginia legislative and executive branches listen.

Todd Hester isa freelance writer and retired Presbyterian minister living in Southwest Virginia. He's been happily married for 25 years to an emergency medicine physician. They have two grown daughters.

Link:
What I Saw At The Richmond Second Amendment Rally - The Federalist

Two gun rights groups planning to host a rally of 130,000 supporters Monday at the Virginia state Capitol have sued to repeal Democratic Gov. Ralph Northams ban on guns, even for those with permits.

Governor Northam is behaving like the royal governors who long preceded him. He has arrogantly and brazenly tried to restrict the rights protected to Virginians by the First and Second Amendments, said Erich Pratt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America.

His group is joining the other rally organizer, Virginia Citizens Defense League, in pushing to win back gun rights on Capitol grounds for the Monday lobby day when members planned to press lawmakers to reject a wave of gun control legislation sailing through the Senate.

Gun Owners of America is joining VCDL in asking the courts to issue an emergency injunction forbidding the enforcement of the governors unlawful ban. The Lobby Day rally is held annually with thousands of participants and without incident. The only difference this year is that, in response to the Democrats attempt to eviscerate the Second Amendment, a much larger crowd is expected, said Pratt.

GOA is arguing that the governors actions violate the Virginia and U.S. Constitutions, as well as, a 2012 state law which strictly limits the governors ability to ban guns in a state of emergency, he added.

Earlier in the day, VCDL ripped the governors emergency decree and suggested that Democrats were hoping for violence at the rally so they could smear gun owners.

In that alert to some 38,000 supporters, VCDL said:

VCDL believes that this gun ban is illegal. Our legal team is looking at our options and we will keep you advised as soon as we have a definitive plan. As it stands now, you can carry on 9th Street, or other nearby streets, as long as you don't go into the fenced-in Capitol grounds area (or into any of the government buildings). There will be 17 magnetometers to speed up security for those wishing to be on the Capitol grounds, which puts you near the stage. You CAN have a knife with a blade LESS THAN 3 inches. Again, wait for final word on the Capitol grounds gun-ban situation over the weekend.

[Read more: Trump could be big beneficiary' in Virginia gun control battle, urged to get involved]

Read more:
Virginia sued over Second Amendment rally gun ban - Washington Examiner

As an incorporated provision of the United States Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment is the supreme law of the land, applying to all U.S. jurisdictions and to the actions of federal, state, and local officials. The U.S. Supreme Court provides the final and authoritative interpretation of that provision, as well as other provisions of the U.S. Constitution. All of this is elementary civics.

But the State of California believes it knows better, requiring publisher McGraw-Hill to annotate a discussion of the Bill of Rights in a popular social studies textbook with the states own peculiar view of the Second Amendments meaning.

According to pictures from the California edition in the New York Times, the annotation states:

Right to Bear Arms This amendment is often debated. Originally it was intended to prevent the national government from repeating the actions of the British, who tried to take weapons away from the colonial militia, or armed forces of the citizens. This amendment seems to support the right of citizens to own firearms, but the Supreme Court has ruled it does not prevent Congress from regulating the interstate sale of weapons.

The Times article goes on to state that the publisher said it had created the additional wording on the Second Amendment and gun control for the California textbook. The same language, however, does not appear in a national version of the same section, according to the Times report.

The point of the New York Times article is to suggest that different states emphasize different aspects of U.S. history in otherwise similar textbooks, depending on the prevailing political outlook among the states education officials.

Whatever might be said of that approach, the problem with Californias account of the Second Amendment isnt just one of emphasis but of accuracy. California, which prides itself on being one of the most anti-gun states in the nation, simply gets it wrong, using language that falsely portrays the Second Amendment as a debated provision that has changed meaning over time and that only seems to protect an individual right.

Any debate about the Second Amendments protection of an individual right have been authoritatively settled by the U.S. Supreme Court: The Second Amendment protects the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation, independent of service in an organized militia. That fact was unambiguously articulated in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008.

That decision, moreover, was based on the public understanding of the Second Amendment at the time it was ratified. In other words, not only was the Second Amendment an individual right as of 2008, it has always been an individual right. As the Supreme Court noted, virtually all interpreters of the Second Amendment in the century after its enactment interpreted the Amendment as we do. It is false to suggest, as the California textbook does, that it originally meant something different and then somehow changed meaning in 2008.

Regarding the prefatory militia clause, the Supreme Court took pains to explain the difference between the justification for including the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights and the scope and substance of that right.

The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution, the court wrote. What justified its codification was the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens' militia by taking away their arms . But, the court noted, the prefatory militia clause announcing the reason for the rights codification does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.

That scope, meanwhile, included using arms for self-defense and hunting, with self-defense being the central component of the right itself, according to the Supreme Court.

The California textbook also misconstrues what the term militia meant to the founding generation at the time of the Second Amendments enactment. It wasnt just a discrete, organized military force, the court explained, but members of the population physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense, whether they were mustered in that capacity or not. Thus, the terms militia and the people are not at odds with each other in the Second Amendment. The people, with their own arms, are the basis of the militia. To protect the peoples private right to arms is therefore to protect the militias ability to muster with arms and to preserve its viability.

As for Congress ability to regulate the interstate sale of weapons, the Supreme Court indicated in Heller that laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms are part of the longstanding history and tradition of the Second Amendment, and are thus presumptively lawful. That does not mean, however, that every such law trumps the amendments protections, especially if there is no longstanding precedent for it.

In any event, the Supreme Court has yet to hear a case that pits the Second Amendment against the Commerce Clause, and it explicitly reserved that and other questions for later consideration. [S]ince this case represents this Courts first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field, the court wrote. [T]here will be time enough to expound upon the historical justifications for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those exceptions come before us.

California likes to emphasize how it sees things differently than the rest of the United States. Thats why common consumer products come with warnings that they include substances known to the State of California to pose various hazards, including cancer or birth defects. So numerous are these warnings that people at this point are most likely to ignore them as sensational and unreliable.

The states students would be wise to take the same approach to official state pronouncements about firearms and the Second Amendment.

California, as the saying goes, is entitled to its opinions. But its not entitled to its own facts.

And when it comes to the Second Amendment, the facts are different than the opinions expressed in the California-specific version of McGraw-Hills social studies textbook.

Activist Wilma Mankiller is quoted as saying, Whoever controls the education of our children controls our future.

Year after year California chips away at the Second Amendment with its ever-expanding gun control regime.

If this continues unabated, the right to keep and bear arms will effectively be nullified for future generations of Californians.

Whats worse if Californias educational bureaucrats have their way is that those generations will be too ignorant of their liberties to even understand what has been taken from them.

Our advice to these students is to exercise their First Amendment rights to learn and speak the truth, and as soon as they are able, exercise the right to vote in favor of those who respect their fundamental liberties, rather than those who try to write them out of history.

See the original post:
State of Ignorance: California Pushes False Information to School Kids on the Second Amendment - NRA ILA

Once again, the radical left has taken things too far. Recently, the Virginia legislature voted to put unconstitutional restrictions on law abiding citizens regarding the right to bear arms. These new laws go directly against the Second Amendment, which unequivocally guarantees this right.

Dont be fooled: while the fight today is in Virginia, that doesnt mean our Second Amendment rights are safe here. Any attempt to restrict the Second Amendment will have consequences across the country. If we let the radical Left get away with this, they will try this at the federal level next.

The Constitution couldnt be clearer when it comes to the Second Amendment: the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. There are no qualifiers or restrictions in that statement. The Second Amendment is straightforward and crystal clear.

This is about more than just the rights of gun owners. This is about defending the Constitution against attacks from those who wish to rewrite our laws, destroy our values and fundamentally transform our country.

Our Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they were able to see the steps that Virginias Democrat politicians have taken to restrict freedom. Now more than ever, freedom loving Americans across the nation have to remain vigilant and push back against policies that threaten our God-given, inalienable rights.

The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that our rights come from God, our creator. The government was intended to protect the rights that were gifted from God, not place restrictions on our rights.

As a gun owner myself, I have always fought to protect the Second Amendment. I have consistently voted for concealed carry reciprocity, to make sure that Americans are able to carry their firearm across state lines. Ive voted to protect the right to carry on federal lands, which is incredibly important for hunters and outdoorsmen. Ive also strongly advocated to end restrictions against carrying a gun on military bases. It is ridiculous to think that American service members trained in the defense of their nation cannot defend themselves on their own bases.

Last year, I led some of my conservative colleagues in supporting the Second Amendment during a major Supreme Court case against the City of New York. The liberals in New York City passed grossly overreaching and unconstitutional ordinances infringing on the Second Amendment. It is crucial we continue confirming conservative judges so that we have justices on the bench that will honor their oath and protect the Second Amendment in times like this when are rights are under attack.

It is saddening to see that now, in 2020, the tyranny our forefathers fought against with blood, sweat and tears is returning. Let us be honest with the American people: gun control is not about safety. It is about power. Radical Democratic politicians are attempting to strip power away from the everyday American before our very eyes.

With their latest political games, the radical left is not just attacking gun owners. They are again trying to tear our Constitution and our country apart by growing government and putting more restrictions on law abiding Americans.

It is more important now than ever before that Alabama has a senator who will fight back against the radical left and who will always stand up for the Second Amendment. Thats why Im running for the Senate: to defend the Constitution and protect our Second Amendment rights.

U.S. Rep. Bradley Byrne is a Republican from Fairhope. He is a 2020 candidate for the U.S. Senate.

See the article here:
Byrne: More important than ever to fight for the Second Amendment - Yellowhammer News