Category Archives: Second Amendment

PHOENIX Declaring state law to be above all others, a Senate panel voted Tuesday block federal gun laws they believe violate the Second Amendment, and to punish the city of Tucson for enacting its own restrictions.

The votes were part of a series of actions by the same Senate committee asserting state supremacy, including:

All of the votes, along party lines in the Republican-controlled Committee on Federalism, Mandates and Fiscal Responsibility, were based on arguments that the state has to protect individual rights from being trampled.

Potentially the most far reaching is SB 1384, requiring federal officials to get permission from a county sheriff before taking certain actions. Sen. Judy Burges, R-Sun City West, said it simply recognizes the supremacy of the state over the federal government, and that sheriffs are each countys chief constitutional and law enforcement officer.

SB 1384 would make it illegal for any federal employee, including a law enforcement official who has not been first given permission by the sheriff, to make an arrest, conduct a search or seize property.

Burges said the law is needed because it is a duty of the sheriff to protect and defend the citizens business of his county from any and all abuses of constitutional rights and freedoms, even in the name of law enforcement.

Exceptions are provided for incidents on federal lands or where the officer has witnessed a crime that requires immediate arrest. And it would not apply to customs or Border Patrol officers.

Burges said there are things already happening in Arizona that are potential flash points, including federal agencies closing roads, and in one instance, in Greenlee County, the confiscation of cattle and sale of them at auction in a dispute between the U.S. Forest Service and the rancher.

Burges sees her legislation as a way for the state to fight back against things like the federal government requiring that wolves be accommodated in Arizona something two other committees have voted to spend $250,000 fighting in court.

She said there already are problems with wolves stalking children, and her legislation affirms the right of the sheriff to defend Arizonans, including shooting a wolf without fear of a $50,000 federal fine.

See the original post:
Senate panel asserts state law trumps federal rule

Cons to the second amendment

By: jasminewittler

Read the original here:
Cons to the second amendment - Video

OLYMPIA Family and friends of a woman killed by her husband at a Spokane hospital last July tried to make it clear Monday they are not anti-gun. They arepro-warning.

Although a gun-rights group questioned whether Sheena Hendersons law would infringe on the Second Amendment, her father Gary Kennison said the proposal has nothing to do with taking guns away from people. Instead, its about letting family members know when a person who may be suffering from mental health issues or was accused of domestic violence gets their guns back from policecustody.

Sheena Henderson was killed by

You have viewed 20 free articles or blogs allowed within a 30-day period. FREE registration is now required for uninterrupted access.

S-R Media, The Spokesman-Review and Spokesman.com are happy to assist you. Contact Customer Service by email or call 800-338-8801

OLYMPIA Family and friends of a woman killed by her husband at a Spokane hospital last July tried to make it clear Monday they are not anti-gun. They arepro-warning.

Although a gun-rights group questioned whether Sheena Hendersons law would infringe on the Second Amendment, her father Gary Kennison said the proposal has nothing to do with taking guns away from people. Instead, its about letting family members know when a person who may be suffering from mental health issues or was accused of domestic violence gets their guns back from policecustody.

Sheena Henderson was killed by her husband, Christopher Henderson, last July. Christopher had been evaluated by law enforcement as a potential suicide risk less than 24 hours earlier, but after he had been cleared by Spokane Valley officers, he retrieved a gun from the Spokane Police Department that had been seized during an earlier suicide attempt; he went to Deaconess where Sheena worked, fatally shot her, then killedhimself.

The family assumed the gun was still in police custody, said Kennison, who was at the Spokane County Courthouse trying to get a restraining order that would have kept Christopher away from Sheena and allowed Deaconess to bar him from the area where she worked. Had I been notified that his gun had been retrieved, she would have been standing beside me at thecourthouse.

The proposed law would set up a three-day waiting period for the return of a gun seized under certain circumstances, and family notification that the return has beenrequested.

See original here:
Washingtons Sheenas Law presented to committee - Tue, 10 Feb 2015 PST

CHEYENNE - The Wyoming Senate on Monday approved second reading of a bill that would extend workplace and other anti-discrimination protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Senate File 115 was approved after consideration of several new amendments to the bill.

The first, sponsored by Sen. Larry Hicks, R-Baggs, would have added creed, disability, political affiliation, economic status, ethnic background and ancestry to the protected classes afforded under SF 115. It also would have struck the "gender" in gender identity and replaced it with "sex," with Hicks arguing the two terms are interchangeable and the change would make the language consistent with the rest of Wyoming statutes.

But the bill's key sponsor, Sen. Chris Rothfuss, D-Laramie, noted that the purpose of the bill is to exclusively address discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

While he appreciated what Hicks was attempting to do, he suggested the amendment overreached, given the bill's intent. "In my reading, it's outside the scope," he said.

"It's a little too broad for what the bill title indicates," Rothfuss said.

Sen. Michael Von Flatern, R-Gillette, agreed, adding that Hicks' amendment covered a lot of ground that already exists elsewhere in Wyoming statute.

Senate President Phil Nicholas, R-Laramie, ruled that the amendment was not germane to the bill, and it was subsequently withdrawn.

The second amendment to the bill, offered by Senate Vice President Drew Perkins, R-Casper, sought to rework his previous amendment, which was approved on the bill's first reading.

The amendment sought to expand the list of organizations that would be exempt from SF 115, going beyond religious organizations to include nonprofit "expressive associations" whose primary purpose or function "are grounded in religious teachings."

Visit link:
Job protection for gays clears Senate hurdle

The Moral and Practical Case for Second Amendment Rights
Andy Bernstein speaks at Constitution Day 2014 in NYC.

By: mzacharyjohnson

See the original post:
The Moral and Practical Case for Second Amendment Rights - Video

Alan Gottlieb: Smart guns at odds with the Second Amendment
Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, spoke with Guns.com last week about smart gun tech and why he thinks gun control advocates are using it...

By: Gunscom

Link:
Alan Gottlieb: Smart guns at odds with the Second Amendment - Video

Wow! In his letter Re-election over safety , Gene Watson of Moon sounds like your typical left-wing anti-Second Amendment ranter who speaks without knowing the facts.

I am sure that Rep. Mustio was not motivated by the NRA and other gun nuts. All Act 192 covers is protection for all law-abiding citizens against local municipalities enacting restrictive prohibitions in violation of the Second Amendment of our U.S. Constitution.

Gilbert Dadowski

Moon

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.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

Read more:
Protects Second Amendment

Preacher Speaking on the Need for the Second Amendment
Pastor on the need for the Second Amendment.

By: 1A

Continue reading here:
Preacher Speaking on the Need for the Second Amendment - Video

Giveaway Secrets Revealed
Second Amendment Giveaways A brief film highlighting all of the different items you should expect to receive in the mail, if you are in fact fortunate enough to be one of our many giveaway...

By: Second Amendment Giveaways

Go here to see the original:
Giveaway Secrets Revealed - Video

Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School *

I. Text of the Second Amendment and Related Contemporaneous Provisions II. Calls for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms from State Ratification Conventions III. "The Right of the People" in Other Bill of Rights Provisions IV. Some Other Contemporaneous Constitutional Provisions With a Similar Grammatical Structure V. 18th- and 19th-Century Commentary A. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765) B. St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries (1803) C. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) D. Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880) VI. Supreme Court Cases A. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) B. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 416-17, 449-51 (1857) C. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 551 (1876) D. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 264-66 (1886) E. Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263, 286-87 (1892) F. Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538-39 (1894) G. Dissent in Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 635 (1896) (Field, J., dissenting) H. Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 280 (1897) I. Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 597 (1900) J. Trono v. United States, 199 U.S. 521, 528 (1905) K. Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 98 (1908) L. United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929) M. Dissent in Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 78 (1947) (Black, J., dissenting) N. Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 784 (1950) (Jackson, J., for the majority) O. Knapp v. Schweitzer, 357 U.S. 371, 378 n.5 (1958) (Frankfurter, J., for the majority) P. Konigsberg v. State Bar, 366 U.S. 36, 49 & n.10 (1961) (Harlan, J., for the majority) Q. Dissent in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 149-51 (1972) (Douglas, J., dissenting, joined by Marshall, J.) R. Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 (1980) S. United States v. Verdugo- Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990) T. Casey v. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. 833, 848 (1992) (dictum) U. Concurrence in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 938-939 (1997) (Thomas, J., concurring) V. Dissent in Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., joined by Rehnquist, C.J., and Scalia and Souter, JJ.) VII. Relevant Statutes A. Militia Act of 1792 B. The currently effective Militia Act C. The Freedmen's Bureau Act (1866) D. The Firearms Owners' Protection Act (1986) VIII. Other Materials IX. State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions (Current and Superseded) A. Sorted by state, though including both current and superseded provisions B. Sorted by date, from 1776 to the present

These materials can be useful for discussing how the Second Amendment ought to be interpreted. I intentionally include more materials here than any teacher will likely use, to give people flexibility in picking and choosing.

Second Amendment: 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.

English Bill of Rights: That the subjects which are protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law (1689). 1

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818). 2

Kentucky: [T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792). 3

Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence (1780). 4

North Carolina: [T]he people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power (1776). 5

Follow this link:
Sources on the Second Amendment and Rights to Keep and ...