Daily Archives: June 20, 2021

When a federal judge in California struck down the states 32-year-old ban on assault weapons in early June 2021, he added a volatile new issue to the gun-rights debate.

The ruling, by U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez, does not take effect immediately, because California has 30 days to appeal the rejection of its assault weapons ban. Most coverage has focused on Benitezs provocative analogy between an AR-15 and a Swiss army knife. But the case raises troubling questions about the meaning and proper role of militias under the Second Amendment.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit claimed that Californias assault weapons ban unconstitutionally restricted citizens Second Amendment rights by preventing them from using assault weapons for home defense and other legal purposes. Californias defense was that assault weapons are more dangerous than other firearms and therefore subject to additional restrictions.

In his ruling, Benitez asserts that citizens have a right to own a private assault weapon not just for defense of a gun owners home, but also for citizens militias engaged in homeland defense.

If the founders were alive today, I believe they would be very concerned because the Constitution is clear that the only militias protected by the Second Amendment are well-regulated units authorized and controlled by state governments, not a private citizen militia.

The preamble to the Second Amendment mentions service in a militia as a reason citizens have the right to keep and bear arms: 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.

In his ruling, Benitez builds on the 2008 Supreme Court case D.C. v. Heller. In that landmark case, the Supreme Court held, as Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, that the amendment protects a right to possess a firearm unconnected to military service and that individuals are free to use such weapons for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Benitez accepts this individual right, including to own assault weapons, but he adds what he calls citizen militias to the mix, which he defines as an informal assembly of able-bodied, ordinary citizens acting in concert for the security of our nation. The AR-15, he says, is an ideal arm for such purposes.

While distinguishing a citizen militia from a state-organized militia, the judge is vague about what, exactly, a citizen militia is. The examples he offers include the armed partisans led by Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh, and the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents. Although Benitez surely knows that the United States has a long history of vigilantism and mob violence, he doesnt say which informal groups of armed citizens in this country might qualify and which would not.

That lack of specificity is a problem. Does a citizen militia include the protesters who occupied the Michigan State Capitol during the spring of 2020, posing with assault weapons slung over their shoulders? What about the activists who in the summer of 2020 briefly created Seattles Capitol Hill autonomous zone, where guards armed with AR-15s stood watch at the entrance and patrolled the streets? Kyle Rittenhouse, on trial for killing two people with a Smith & Wesson rifle in Kenosha, Wisconsin, allegedly viewed himself as part of a militia and claimed to be helping the police.

The biggest problem with Benitezs ruling is that the Second Amendment sanctions a well-regulated militia, not an informal assembly of armed citizens. As the founders knew, a well-regulated militia was one authorized, trained and with growing frequency during the American Revolution armed and provisioned by state governments.

After the American Revolution, the purpose of these state militias was clearly laid out in Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the Constitution: so Congress could use them to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.

Today, the militia in all 50 states is the National Guard. In California, as Benitez notes in his opinion, the militia also includes the State Guard, a force trained and equipped by the government. There is nothing informal about it.

Having lived through the Revolutionary War, the founders knew why the words well regulated mattered. They had seen what happened when people took the law into their own hands.

After the Boston Massacre in 1770, when British soldiers opened fire on a crowd that had been pelting them with rocks and ice, John Adams defended the soldiers during their murder trial, worried that a guilty verdict could lead to mob rule.

In 1775, the Colonial Minutemen who stood their ground at Lexington and Concord served in units authorized by the Massachusetts legislature. Although taking up arms against their king and his soldiers, they fought as members of a well-regulated militia.

Naturally, not all early Americans accepted such distinctions. During the so-called Whiskey Rebellion from 1791 to 1794, which occurred after the Constitution and Second Amendment had been ratified, armed insurgents near Pittsburgh forcibly resisted a new federal tax on distilled spirits, mustering in military-style formations, tarring and feathering federal excise officers, and threatening secession. President George Washington responded in 1794 by marching west at the head of 12,950 federalized state militiamen. By the time the Western Army reached the Ohio River, most of the rebels had gone home. The nations first president made clear that in a democratic republic, the way to make your voice heard is through the ballot box, not the muzzle of a gun.

The right to own a gun is not unlimited, as Justice Scalia wrote in 2008. For that reason, the Supreme Court held that state and federal authorities can bar firearms from schools and public buildings, while the people remain free to prohibit what Scalia called dangerous and unusual weapons.

The AR-15 may no longer be unusual, but Californias decision to appeal Benitezs ruling shows that the state still thinks it is dangerous. If the rifle really is Benitezs ideal weapon for a citizen militia, then perhaps the state is right.

[Insight, in your inbox each day. You can get it with The Conversations email newsletter.]

Read more:
Why the Second Amendment protects a 'well-regulated militia' but not a private citizen militia - The Conversation US

June 17, 2021 | Austin, Texas | Press Release

Governor Greg Abbott today signed seven pieces of legislation into law to protect Second Amendment Rights in Texas. The Governor was joined for the bill signing ceremony by Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, Speaker Dade Phelan, Senators Donna Campbell, Brandon Creighton, Charles Schwertner, and Drew Springer, Representatives Giovanni Capriglione, Cole Hefner, Tom Oliverson, Matt Schaefer, David Spiller, and other members of the legislature, as well as representatives of the National Rifle Association.

"Politicians from the federal level to the local level have threatened to take guns from law-abiding citizens but we will not let that happenin Texas," said GovernorAbbott. "Texas will always be the leader in defending the Second Amendment, which is why we built a barrier around gun rights this session. These seven laws will protect the rights of law-abiding citizens and ensure that Texas remains a bastionof freedom. Thank you to the Texas Legislaturefor gettingthese bills to my desk."

Senate Bill 19 (Schwertner/Capriglione) prohibits any governmental entity from contracting with any business that discriminates against firearm and ammunition businesses or organizations.

Senate Bill 20 (Campbell/Hefner) allows guests to store firearms in their hotel rooms.

Senate Bill 550 (Springer/Spiller) removes the shoulder or belt holster requirements, allowing Texans to carry firearms in whatever kind of holster they choose.

House Bill 957 (Oliverson/Springer) repeals the criminal offense of possessing, manufacturing, transporting, or repairing a firearm silencer. It also ensures that any firearm suppressor manufactured in Texas, and that remains in Texas, will not be subject to federal law or federal regulation.

House Bill 1500 (Hefner/Creighton) prevents any government entity from prohibiting the sale or transportation of firearms or ammunition during a declared disaster or emergency.

House Bill 1927 (Schaefer/Schwertner) authorizes Constitutional Carry in Texas, meaning law-abiding Texans can legally carry a handgun without a license to carry.

House Bill 2622 (Holland/Hall) makes Texas a Second Amendment Sanctuary State by protecting Texans from new federal gun control regulations.

See the rest here:
Governor Abbott Signs Second Amendment Legislation Into Law - Office of the Texas Governor

What if the Second Amendment isnt really about guns at all?

Historian Carol Anderson believes the right to bear arms was designed to keep Black people enslaved and powerless. Her new book, The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America, lays out the historical context for the Second Amendments passage. She builds the case that militias at the time of our countrys founding were primarily about protecting slavery, and that white supremacy is embedded into the bedrock of the right to bear arms.

Last week, host Kerri Miller talked about soaring gun sales and gun violence. This Monday, at 9 a.m., shell add to the conversation by talking with Anderson about the racial threads woven through gun rights in America.

Guest:

Subscribe to the MPR News with Kerri Miller podcast on: Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify or RSS.

You make MPR News possible. Individual donations are behind the clarity in coverage from our reporters across the state, stories that connect us, and conversations that provide perspectives. Help ensure MPR remains a resource that brings Minnesotans together.

Donate today. A gift of $17 makes a difference.

See the article here:
A fresh look at the intent of the Second Amendment - Minnesota Public Radio News

The Los Angeles Times editorial page is less a journalistic enterprise than it is a partisan grievance noticeboard. The editorial boards descent into trivial activist messaging was on full display in a pair of recent pieces lamenting the federal judiciarys recognition of the Second Amendment. In both, the editorial board denied the core rulings in the U.S. Supreme Courts opinions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago that recognized the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. In neither piece did the would-be jurists at the L.A. Times offer evidence or argument as to their incorrect position or why the legal analysis of self-important regime press agents should carry any weight whatsoever.

The first editorial was published on April 26 and titled, The Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that could mean more guns in public. The item took issue with the U.S. Supreme Courts decision to grant cert to NRA-backed case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett. The case challenges New Yorks concealed carry licensing scheme and could prompt the Court to recognize that the right to keep and bear arms extends outside the home.

Lamenting the Courts cert decision, the editorial board wrote,

The case the court accepted Monday (New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. Inc. vs. Corlett) follows the courts controversial 2008 Heller decision, which for the first time enunciated a right to own a firearm in the home for self-protection, breaking with historic perceptions that the right was conferred only to members of state militias. From our perspective, it was an errant reading of the Constitution, but unfortunately the nation is stuck with it.

The second editorial was published June 7 and titled, The judge is wrong: Californias assault-weapons ban must stand. This piece complained about the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in Miller v. Bonta. The decision, by Judge Roger Benitez, found that Californias ban on commonly-owned semiautomatic firearms violated the Second Amendment.

Benitezs ruling on the California ban was the result of a faithful interpretation of the Heller and McDonald decisions. We can be certain of this because Heller author Justice Antonin Scalia signed onto a dissent from the denial of certiorari in Friedman v. Highland Park, a case concerning a local ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, that stated as much. The dissent noted,

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.

Defending Californias unconstitutional ban, the L.A. Times editorial board whined,

Even the Supreme Courts controversial 2008 Heller decision, which for the first time recognized (wrongly) an individual right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense, also said that the government has an interest in regulating firearms and that the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.

In addition to its rejection of the Heller ruling, the editorial board did not even get the basic history correct when it contended that Heller recognized the individual right protected by the Second Amendment for the first time. As Scalia explained in Heller, the Courts ruling in the 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is not only consistent with, but positively suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.

After their defeat in Heller, the more sophisticated gun control advocates abandoned their discredited collective right messaging on the Second Amendment. In fact, some gun control organizations have explicitly told activists in their messaging guides not to Attack the Second Amendment or gun owners in general.

In 2016, anti-gun group Americans for Responsible Solutions (now Giffords) conducted a gun control rebranding effort based on poll and focus-group data. The resulting messaging booklet warned supporters not to Attack the NRA or the Second Amendment. An earlier gun control group messaging guide from 2013, titled, Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging told readers to acknowledge Yes, there is a right to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. Moreover, it told gun control activists, dont re-litigate the courts rulings.

There is good reason for the anti-gun groups advice. Aside from the fact that the outmoded collective interpretation of the Second Amendment is indefensible, that false reading is wildly unpopular.

A February 2008 USA Today/Gallup poll conducted prior to the Heller decision asked respondents, Do you believe the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns, or do you believe it only guarantees members of state militias such as National Guard units the right to own guns? The response was unambiguous; 73-percent responded that the Second Amendment guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns, while a mere 20-percent limited that right to state militia members

A Quinnipiac University poll conducted shortly after the Heller decision, in July 2008, mirrored these results. This poll asked respondents, Would you support or oppose amending the United States Constitution to ban individual gun ownership? 78-percent opposed such a measure, while only 17-percent were in favor.

In May 2009, CNN and ORC conducted a similar poll that asked Which of the following comes closer to your interpretation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? In addition to addressing the need for citizen-militias, it was intended to give individual Americans the right to keep and bear arms for their own defense. It was only intended to preserve the existence of citizen-militias, and does not give individual Americans the right to keep and bear arms for their own defense. Once again, the American public made their position clear; with 77-percent choosing individual gun ownership to 21-percent answering only citizen-militias.

With the individual right to keep and bear arms firmly established by the U.S. Supreme Court, in April 2018 Quinnipiac asked respondents Would you support or oppose repealing the Second Amendment, also known as the right to bear arms? An overwhelming 79-percent opposed repeal.

The vast majority of the general public, the federal government, the U.S. Supreme Court, both major political parties, and even some of the major gun control groups have all acknowledged or reluctantly acquiesced to the fact that the Second Amendment means what it says the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The L.A. Timess intransigence is symbolic of an increasingly radical and detached media elite who would rather nurse their own prejudices than accept reality or provide any meaningful reporting or informed commentary.

More here:
LA Times Still Denying the Second Amendment - NRA ILA

SUPPORT THIS INDEPENDENT JOURNALISMThe article youre about to read is from our reporters doing their important work investigating, researching, and writing their stories. We want to provide informative and inspirational stories that connect you to the people, issues and opportunities within our community. Journalism requires lots of resources. Today, our business model has been interrupted by the pandemic; the vast majority of our advertisers businesses have been impacted. Thats why the SC Times is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insiders program here. Thank you.

JOIN NOW

DICK PARSONS, San Clemente

There has been much banter the last month about our Second Amendment rights, pro or con. I, for one, am a strong supporter of those rights, as I believe are the majority of Americans.

I also favor the laws that are currently enforced to ensure that we protect our citizens from those who should not have firearms, including felons, criminals and those with mental health issues.

If new laws are required to close loopholes that may exist such as additional background checks, I would be happy to participate in those discussions.

The recent city council activities around a non-binding proposal put forth by several members took and is taking an inordinate amount of time away from other more important issues facing our city, and wasting tax dollars.

Since a non-binding resolution is simply a feel good statement, it is basically worthless, and tends to aggravate many people in our community. Lets stop wasting time going back and forth on this and focus on more important issues.

For example, just about every year, bulldozers come to T-Street and build up the sand bank to protect from winter high tides. Instead of doing this last fall, they came a couple of week ago before the Memorial Day holiday and took up all the sand and left beachgoers nothing but rocks to sit on.

Why? Who thought this was a good idea? Visitors were shocked to see nothing but stones on what was once a premier stretch of beach. And, where is the concern about the high levels of bacteria in our beach waterwhat is the problem and is there any way to help correct it before the heat of summer?

I think these are more important issues than feel good Second Amendment statements.

Overall, I have no axe to grind with our city council. I think they do a pretty good job in the aggregate. Please, just spend more time on things that matter for our community and less on those that contribute nothing to our way of life.

Related

BECOME AN INSIDER TODAYTrustworthy, accurate and reliable local news stories are more important now than ever. Support our newsroom by making a contribution and becoming a subscribing member today.

CONTRIBUTE NOW

See more here:
Letter to the Editor: More on 2nd Amendment Rights - San Clemente Times

It has been thirteen years since the Supreme Court last looked at the Second Amendment. In that case, District of Columbia v. Heller, it finally admitted that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right to home defense, and not merely a right for states to maintain a well-regulated militia. In April of this year, the Court agreed to hear New York Rifle and Pistol Organization v. Corlett. This will address whether that right of individuals to bear arms gives constitutional protection for those who want to carry a firearm across town, or if one is only allowed to carry it from the bedroom to the kitchen.

Meanwhile, there has been a spate of activity in Californias Ninth Circuit. Three separate cases from the lower courts have nullified different aspects of Californias virtual ban on the popular AR-15 (Armalite Rifle). Duncan v. Becerra overturned Californias ban on the standard 30-round magazine. Rupp v. Becerra and, more recently, Miller v. Bonta challenge Californias AR-15 ban as violating SCOTUS common use standard.

If all this seems barely relevant except to preppers, this column is for you. My purpose today is not to get into the weeds of all these cases and reconcile the Courts strange and contradictory pronouncements. Rather, I will simply outline a few basic concepts to help the non-gun enthusiast appreciate what is at stake.

We begin by observing that the most ardent defenders of the Constitution were opposed to the original Bill of Rights. They did not oppose the rights delineated in the first ten amendments. Rather, they opposed the very idea of delineating rights. The problem, as they saw it, is the difference between natural law and positive law.

The U.S. Constitution is an outgrowth of the natural law that produced the Declaration of Independence. The law that all men are created equal existed before governments and legislators said so. Positive law, on the other hand, creates law as a social contract. According to it, humans have no rights whatsoever until those in power say that they do. Positive law theory attacks the very foundations of our constitutional republic.

By making a list of specific rights, the Bill of Rights presented two dangers. First, just rights unintentionally omitted from the list might not be protected. Second, the Bill of Rights itself might inadvertently teach that rights come from the federal government, and are not transcendent and above all human institutions.

Especially when it comes to the Second Amendment, those original critics of the Bill of Rights have been vindicated. Gun rightseven more than the rights of free speech, free assembly, free press and the free exercise of religionare too often treated as special privileges that can be alternately doled out or rescinded at the whim of lawmakers. To the contrary, the Constitutions framers considered the right to keep and bear arms as a natural right inherent in the very fact of your humanity. It does not arise from government, but from God.

Obviously, this view of the Second Amendment does not depend on current technology. Whether a person has the right to carry a rock, a knife or a pistol is not for the government to decide. What is inherent in the very reality of humanity created in the image of God is the responsibility to love ones neighbor with heart, soul, strength and mind.

When loving ones neighbor requires defending him or her from bodily harm, human beings have the corresponding right not only to make use of physical strength, but also to use the mind. We think up tools that can assist us to defend our families and our neighbors from harm. This creativity comes from God and is a gift that the animals do not possess. No government has the right to infringe on it.

This right exists independently of the Second Amendment because your responsibility to protect your neighbor is not an assignment from the government, but an assignment from God. As technology advances and your neighbor is threatened by more sophisticated tools, your right to match this sophistication by possessing tools for defense is inherent.

Contrary to SCOTUS common use doctrine, there is nothing in the Constitution, or in natural law, that requires a tool to be commonly available before you have a right to keep and carry it. Rather, governments should limit themselves to prohibiting only those tools that have no use in defending individual persons or which are impossible to use without harming innocent bystanders.

As we stock up on fireworks to celebrate the firearms that won our independence, now would be a good time to think about the modern tools that we need to have on hand to protect the life and liberty of our neighbors in the 21st century.

Read more:
Re-grounding the Second Amendment in natural law - Wyoming Tribune

On a recent episode of "Democracy Now!," Professor Carol Anderson discussed her book"The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America"that describes how the Second Amendment was written to empower local militia groups to put down slave revolts and protect plantation owners. She writes the Second Amendment is rooted in fear of Black people, to deny them their rights, to keep them from tasting liberty.

In light of that, those (with their Tarzan yells) who beat their chests about the Second Amendment are most likely alt-right/white supremacist scaredy-cats who are terrified of people of color, esp. blacks.

Recently attorney Alexandria Kinaid said We are committed to continuing to challenge the erosion of Second Amendment rights in Idaho.

Since the Second Amendment was created to suppress blacks (esp. freed slaves), it SHOULD be eroded.

I have to ask our local Second Amendment advocates (Steve Wasylko, Ron Korn, Dan McDonald, Scott Herndon and Jeff Avery)do you condemn the January 6thriot and mob attack of our nations capital? Dont beafraid, speak up and go on the record about your position on the Jan. 6insurrection.

Remember, intelligence is a gift and ignorance is a choice. Its sad that so many on the right prefer the latter.

LEE SANTA

Sandpoint

Originally posted here:
The Second Amendment is a racist document - Bonner County Daily Bee

That African Americans were no match for the slave owners arsenal didnt mitigate their resistance to subjugation Anderson reports at least a half-dozen insurrection scares during the colonial period. In response to Charlestons bloody Stono Rebellion, South Carolinas Negro Act of 1740 became the model for slave codes throughout North America, (requiring) heavy-handed white control that curtailed the enslaveds movements, literacy, right to self-defense and access to firearms.

Courtesy of Bloomsbury Publishing

Credit: Handout

Credit: Handout

In the Lowcountrys labor-intensive rice culture, 18th century planters understood perfectly the consequences of the hellish society they had spawned. Anderson writes, the combination of insatiable desire for enormous profits coupled with the sadistic brutalization of bonded African labor created an overwhelming fear among whites of the enslaveds capacity and desire for retribution.

Crucial to her case is James Madison, the Virginian who would become Americas fourth President. A slave owner who believed slavery to be an abomination, Madison was the key figure in crafting the Second Amendment. He embraced the necessity of a new constitution, siding with the Federalists, who sought a more coherent government with a national bank and a professional military.

To the contrary, the Anti-Federalists, aligned with Southern slavers like Patrick Henry, feared the centralization of power and a standing army. Undaunted, Madison sprinted between factions, brokering compromises that finally secured the Constitution of the United States in 1789. As an additional inducement, he promised the Anti-Federalists a Bill of Rights to follow. The Second Amendment was therefore, according to Anderson, a bribe that not only elevated militias, whose primary and most important function was controlling the Black population, but ensured that the federal governments constitutional role would not interfere in the states ability to use those forces when necessary.

The Second Amendment was ratified just as the Haitian Revolution began in 1791. The news of victory for the islands slave population would send an electromagnetic pulse wave through the white South. Charleston was as close to Saint Domingue as it was to Boston.

Would Blacks access to guns have made a difference in the 400 years since their arrival in the New World?

Andersons answer is, mostly, no. The armed power of the state, paramilitary mobs and the local police has been too great. As for the Black Panthers and their Hollywood displays of firepower in the late 1960s, she details her reasons for the failure of armed self defense as a political tactic. (Black Lives Matter has never endorsed this strategy.)

(P)ervasive anti-Blackness, even after the civil rights movement, turned the Second Amendments law for protection the castle doctrine, stand your ground and open carry against African Americans, Anderson writes, pointing to studies that indicate, when African Americans openly carry a gun, although allowed by law, it raises exponentially the sense of danger about them and to them.

Anderson has a gift for elegant summary. Her writing has clarity of style and a cool zeal, but do not doubt the fire. The best historians have noble intent; for them, that means nurturing an empathy for historys victims and accepting ones inevitable professional vulnerability: The Second, she said in her Zoom interview, was a hard write, before pausing to add, pain over centuries.

And so she reaches a damning conclusion: The Second (Amendment) is lethal; steeped in anti-Blackness, it is the loaded weapon laying around just waiting for the hand of some authority to put it to use.

As for all tomorrows options, Anderson reminds us of one thats 200 years old: the vision of Gabriel Prosser, who led an 1800 slave revolt in Virginia. His objective, Anderson states, was to create a multiracial, multi-religious, multiethnic republic. It was as if an occult hand had nudged Gabriel well in advance of his contemporaries, the Founding Fathers, who are still trying to find themselves in the 21st century. It is time to defuse the power of white rage, Anderson writes. It is time to move into that future.

NONFICTION

The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America

by Carol Anderson

Bloomsbury Publishing

272 pages, $28

View post:
The Second eyes racial implications of the right to bear arms - Atlanta Journal Constitution

This is a response to "County leaders again disappoint with Second Amendment letter."

Please listen, with discerning ears, to the words of those who would paint us all as less than constitutional. They repaint your history with their beliefs. Do you want to be ruled by these people?

They misguide you with their opinions. They tell you what you are to speak. Do you want to be led by these people?

The Constitution and its amendments were put in place by Americans fighting against such authoritative rulers. Americans should stand up for their rights named via the Constitution and the amendments. Dont you want freedom?

We the people, we the United States, are not bound to the guilt some people would try to paint us with. Our whole history is one of improvements for the citizens of the United States and the world. Dont you want to retain and restore your freedoms?

I know that many of you feel the same as the 50 who sent letters to our Walla Walla County Commissioners about their regard for the Second Amendment.

Please send our County Commissioners your thoughts about supporting the Second Amendment in Walla Walla County. We need your voice.

Link:
Your support of the Second Amendment is needed - Walla Walla Union-Bulletin