Category Archives: Second Amendment

Konni Burton Defends Texan Second Amendment Rights
For more information go to http://konniburton.com/

By: KonniBurtontx

Originally posted here:
Konni Burton Defends Texan Second Amendment Rights - Video

Combat Arms: Gameplay #10: Second Amendment is back!
In this video, I will be playing and recording Combat Arms. I am playing on the map, Junk Flea on Quarantine Regen using a nade, MZP-1, and also the Second A...

By: GoatPatrol

Here is the original post:
Combat Arms: Gameplay #10: Second Amendment is back! - Video

In D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court stated that (emphasis added, citations omitted, as usual),

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

[Footnote: We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.]

The question, then, is whether this presumpti[on] of validity can ever be rebutted for instance, if a persons felony conviction is many decades in the past, is for a not very serious felony, or both. Todays Suarez v. Holder (M.D. Pa. Feb. 18, 2015) concludes that the presumption was indeed rebutted in this case, where the past felony conviction was in 1990, the claimants last misdemeanor conviction was in 1998, and the claimant has otherwise shown that he is now a law-abiding citizen (here by, among other things, having gotten a security clearance for his work with Department of Defense clients). And this is so even though the 1990 felony conviction was for illegal carrying of a gun (and the facts showed that he was drunk at the time), and the 1998 misdemeanor conviction was for drunk driving:

Defendants assert that Plaintiff has not shown that he is no more dangerous than a typical law-abiding citizen and poses no continuing threat to society. First, they emphasize that at the time of Plaintiffs arrest, he was carrying a .357 Magnum handgun and two loaded speed-loaders while intoxicated to the point that he was placed under arrest for driving under the influence. They argue that possessing a firearm while intoxicated poses such a danger that many jurisdictions impose criminal sanctions for doing so. We agree with Defendants that the circumstances of Plaintiffs arrest were dangerous. But the inquiry is whether the challenger, today, not at the time of arrest, is more dangerous than a typical law-abiding citizen or poses a continuing threat.

There are two ways in which a challenger may fail to show he is not dangerous. One, the challengers conviction is for acts so violent that even after twenty-five years of nonviolent behavior he would continue to be dangerous and to pose a threat to society. This is not that case. Or [two], the facts and circumstances since the conviction show that the challenger remains dangerous. As revealed in our discussion above, we find Plaintiffs background and circumstance establish that, today, he is not dangerous and does not pose a risk to society.

Second, Defendants argue that although Plaintiffs predicate conviction was not violent, empirical studies reveal that those like Plaintiff have a high rate of violent recidivism, and thus Plaintiff continues to be dangerous and pose a societal threat. While we agree that the generalized results of an empirical study are useful to refute a facial challenge and demonstrate that a statute survives some sort of means-end scrutiny, we do not find that generalized conclusions are particularly useful in as-applied challenges to demonstrate whether Plaintiff, himself, is dangerous or poses a continuing threat. Accordingly, we find the studies of little moment and decline to rely on them to find that Plaintiff is dangerous.

For other cases that reach similar results, see Binderup v. Holder (M.D. Pa. 2014) (Second Amendment), Britt v. State, 681 S.E.2d 320 (N.C. 2009) (state constitutional right to bear arms), and Baysden v. State, 718 S.E.2d 699 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011) (state constitutional right to bear arms). For federal opinions that say that people can regain their Second Amendment rights in such situations (though without holding that the particular claimant regained those rights), see United States v. Moore, 666 F.3d 313, 320 (4th Cir. 2012); United States v. Barton, 633 F.3d 168, 174 (3d Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 616 F.3d 685, 693 (7th Cir. 2010); United States v. Duckett, 406 Fed. Appx. 185, 187 (9th Cir. 2010) (Ikuta, J., concurring); United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037, 1049-50 (10th Cir. 2009) (Tymkovich, J., concurring). Congratulations to Alan Gura, who won this case and Binderup (as well as, of course, Heller and McDonald in the Supreme Court, and other lower court Second Amendment cases as well).

(Note that Suarezs 1990 conviction was labeled a misdemeanor under Maryland law, but the district court held correctly, I think that the conviction was treated as a felony under federal law, because the maximum punishment was three years in prison, above the two-year cutoff that the federal statute uses as the misdemeanor/felony line in such cases.)

The government has appealed the Binderup case, and is thus likely to appeal this one. But I expect both Binderup and this case will stand up on appeal, given the Third Circuits Barton precedent; and I doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court would agree to hear the case.

See original here:
Volokh Conspiracy: Second Amendment protects people with old, nonviolent felony convictions

REXBURG Dan Roberts and members of the Second Amendment Alliance are staging a march and rally in Rexburg this Saturday Feb. 21, in support of the House Bill 89, or the Constitutional Carry bill.

Roberts said those participating will meet at 3:30 p.m. at the Madison County Courthouse and all participants are welcome to open carry their favorite firearms.

He said those assembled at the courthouse will then march to the Rexburg Tabernacle, where they will listen to a short presentation and be given the opportunity to sign a petition supporting the constitutional carry bill.

Roberts said House bill 89, or the constitutional carry bill, was recently tabled by the State Affairs Committee in the State Legislature. The bill would enable constitutional carry or concealed carry, without a permit in the State of Idaho.

Roberts also said this demonstration is loosely coordinated with another rally in Boise that is calling for the legislature to take another look at House Bill 89.

Roberts said this rally would be almost exactly the same as the pro-Second Amendment rally two years ago, except with a specific focus on the constitutional carry legislation.

Its a little different focus, you know, last time we were just talking about gun rights in general and not wanting to have more restrictions. This time were looking more at being proactive, trying to get rid of some existing regulations; specifically, we would like to see what they call a constitutional carry, which is basically any law abiding citizen in Idaho could carry within the state boundaries concealed without a permit, Roberts said.

Roberts said this years presentation at the tabernacle will be short, with only a few speakers, including Ron Nate, who represents Rexburg in the Idaho legislature.

Roberts said according to current regulations there are two types of concealed carry permits: one requires no training and a $60 fee and the other is an enhanced concealed carry permit that requires a course in addition to a fee.

Roberts said that since the standard concealed carry permit doesnt require any training, merely a fee for a background check, then the permits are useless.

Read the original:
Open carry rally slated

Wednesday, 18 February 2015 00:15

PESHAWAR: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly Tuesday passed The Local Government (Second Amendment) Bill, 2015 amid walk-out by JUI-F legislators to pave way for establishing Village and Neighbourhood Councils in all districts of the province.

The legislation namely The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government (Second Amendment) Bill, 2015 was presented in the house by Senior Minister for Local Government, Inayatullah Khan. After delimitation of the councils by Election Commission of Pakistan, the provincial government by notification in the official Gazette will notify its establishment in all districts.

The Bill also included the proposed establishment of district and tehsil councils for district Kohistan and newly curved out district of Kohistan Lower.

Maulana Asmatullah, a JUI-F legislator from the district said that the proposed amendment is against the 1973 constitution, saying that the area is provincially administered tribal area and no legislation would be made for them without the approval of President of Pakistan. Furthermore, he termed it a subjudice matter.

The leader of opposition, Maulana Lutf-ur-Rehman also stood in support of his colleague and proposed constitution of a committee for carrying out detailed review of the legislation to come up with a unanimous solution of the matter.

The Senior Minister however declined to pay any heed to the proposals of the opposition legislators and said the provincial assembly has mandate of making legislation for districts of the province while districts are made on administrative basis.

He said as the Local Council is responsible for holding elections in all districts and tehsils, therefore, they are bringing the proposed amendment in the Local Government Act. He said that new district in Kohistan had already been made where Deputy Commissioner (DC) and District Police Officer (DPO) are also posted.

Regarding the contentions that the matter is subjudice, he said a petition in this regard has already been rejected by the Abbottabad Bench of Peshawar High Court. He dispelled the impression that the matter is repugnant to the constitution.

He said that after passage of the bill from the provincial assembly, a summary will be sent to the Governor and after his approval it would be sent to the President of Pakistan through the Department of Home and Tribal Affairs.

Follow this link:
PA adopts LG (Amendment) Bill amid JUI-F protest

What is missing from the national gun debate? Dr. Edwin Vieira
What is the actual history and purpose of the Second Amendment? A growing number of gun control advocates insist that this key constitutional provision was n. While most of the recent gun-control...

By: Tonya Markus

See the article here:
What is missing from the national gun debate? Dr. Edwin Vieira - Video

Rep. Jenkins Reads Second Amendment on House Floor
U.S. Representative Evan Jenkins (R-W.Va.) read the Second Amendment on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives Jan. 9 during the House #39;s reading of t...

By: RepEvanJenkins

See the original post here:
Rep. Jenkins Reads Second Amendment on House Floor - Video

Second Amendment Documentary

By: jasehoward

Read the rest here:
Second Amendment Documentary - Video

News - Gun Rights Proclamation - theDove.us
Jackson County Commissioners are working on stating their support for the Second Amendment. Originally aired on theDove TV Radio 6th February 2015 See more...

By: theDoveTV

Read this article:
News - Gun Rights Proclamation - theDove.us - Video

A pro-gun groups lawsuit seeking to undermine the citys strict gun control laws has been shot down by a Manhattan Federal Court judge.

The NRA-affiliated New York State Pistol and Rifle Association sued the city in 2013, arguing that laws limiting certain licensed handgun owners to carrying their unloaded weapons directly to or from their homes and shooting ranges infringed on their Second Amendment rights.

Judge Robert Sweet said he wasnt buying it last week in a 43-page ruling.

These regulations are reasonable and result from the substantial government interest in public safety, Sweet wrote, citing previous rulings that outside the home, firearms safety interests often outweigh individual interests in self-defense.

The gun group had argued the small number of shooting ranges only eight in the city amounted to a gun ban. Sweet countered that the paucity of gun ranges was simply the free market at work.

There are over 40,000 active handgun licenses in the city, according to court documents.

We are pleased that the city was able to defeat this challenge to our common-sense gun laws that are designed to keep us all safe, said Mayor de Blasios spokeswoman, Marti Adams.

Sweet called the restrictions a minimal, or at most, modest burden on Second Amendment rights. He said the NYPD processes 3,200 new applications and 9,000 renewal applications for handgun licenses yearly. The gun association did not respond or comment.

sbrown@nydailynews.com

Continued here:
Federal Court judge shoots down pro-gun group's lawsuit