Category Archives: Second Amendment

A recent decision by theU.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that says illegalalienswhat the left likes to call undocumented immigrantsenjoy a Second Amendment right to bear arms, even if their presence in this nation is criminal.

In the case of a Milwaukee man deported over a single .22 caliber cartridge, a federal appeals court ruled last week that even unlawful immigrants can be part of the public that enjoys a Second Amendment right to keep a gun for self defense.

The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeas said even undocumented immigrants can be part of the people protected by the Bill of Rights, though it upheld the mans conviction on a specific law that prohibits most such persons from having guns.

It is now clear that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is no second-class entitlement, (and) we see no principled way to carve out the Second Amendment and say that the unauthorized (or maybe all noncitizens) are excluded, Judge Diane Wood wrote for a panel that included judges Richard Easterbrook and Joel Flaum.

No language in the Amendment supports such a conclusion, nor, as we have said, does a broader consideration of the Bill of Rights.

Because four other federal circuit courts have come to the opposite conclusion, legal commentators were quick to suggest the issue of whether undocumented immigrants have Second Amendment rights could now be headed for the U.S. Supreme Court.

While rejecting the idea that undocumented immigrants could never have any rights under the Second Amendment, Wood noted that even for citizens, those rights are not unlimited. She found that a federal law tailored to keep guns out of the hands of undocumented immigrants like gun restrictions imposed on felons and those convicted of domestic violence was constitutional, and upheld the conviction on those grounds.

My basic, over-riding belief on the Second Amendment is that any case involving the right to keep and bear arms should be held to the legal standard of strict scrutiny, and that all law-abiding citizens and legal resident aliens should have the right to keep and bear arms.

This case, however, is stating that criminals who arent citizens nor legal resident aliens have Second Amendment rights and Im having a hard problem with that. Im apparently not alone, as the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Circuit court arent buying the argument, either. The split among the courts suggests that the basic issue will head to the U.S. Supreme court at some point.

Something that makes me even more leery about this case is that the progressives at Think Progress gleefully predict that if the Seventh Circuits views hold, they could use it to win even more rights for illegal aliens. In specific, theyre hoping these illegals will get expanded First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment protections if United States vs. Meza-Rodriguez holds. Put another way, theyre hoping this Second Amendment case will turn into an anchor baby that makes it more difficult to send criminal aliens back home.

Call me a butter if you want, but I dont think for a second that the Founding Fathers would support the concept of granting criminal invaders the same legal status as legal immigrants, legal resident aliens, and citizens. Lets hope that when this case makes it to the Supreme Court that the justices with the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth circuit courts.

See original here:
Court Rules Illegal Aliens Have Second Amendment Rights ...

Dieter Spears/Photodisc/Getty Images

Text of Amendment:

Origins:

Having been oppressed by a professional army, the founding fathers of the United States had no use for establishing one of their own. Instead, they decided that an armed citizenry makes the best army of all. General George Washington created regulation for the aforementioned "well-regulated militia," which would consist of every able-bodied man in the country.

Controversy:

The Second Amendment holds the distinction of being the only amendment to the Bill of Rights that essentially goes unenforced. The U.S. Supreme Court has never struck down any piece of legislation on Second Amendment grounds, in part because justices have disagreed on whether the amendment is intended to protect the right to bear arms as an individual right, or as a component of the "well-regulated militia."

Interpretations of the Second Amendment:

There are three predominant interpretations of the Second Amendment:

Where the Supreme Court Stands:

The only Supreme Court ruling in U.S. history that has focused primarily on the issue of what the Second Amendment really means is U.S. v. Miller (1939), which is also the last time the Court examined the amendment in any serious way. In Miller, the Court affirmed a median interpretation holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, but only if the arms in question are those that would be useful as part of a citizen militia. Or maybe not; interpretations vary, partly because Miller is not an exceptionally well-written ruling.

Read the original:
Second Amendment - Text, Origins, and Meaning

There's no way to determine if a better armed police or citizen bearing arms could have stopped the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Evidence does show that France has been able to keep a much lower gun homicide rate than America has, but will remain vulnerable to terrorism without a greater ability to crack down on illegal guns in the system.

John A. Tures

Political science professor, LaGrange College in Georgia

At the service the rabbi had nailed it. None of us should have been there. And I shouldn't have been standing in the middle of the police vehicular evidence lot.

Charlie Allenson

Freelance writer, communications facilitator using improv comedy techniques, volunteer music therapist.

Did you ever hear the AAA say that "cars don't kill people, people kill people?" Nobody would ever say something so stupid or dumb. But John Boehner gets away with it every time he and his colleagues cave in to pressure from the NRA and vote to defund CDC research on guns.

In the wake of horrific tragedies in Charleston and Sandy Hook, our national conversation persistently returns to guns, but goes nowhere. Why? In part, I think, because we have ignored a fundamental truth: most Americans think lots of 'common-sense' gun rules are already law.

Read this article:
Second Amendment : Pictures, Videos, Breaking News

The Twenty-second Amendment of the United States Constitution sets a term limit for election to the office of President of the United States. Congress passed the amendment on March 21, 1947. It was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 27, 1951.

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.

Historians point to George Washington's decision not to seek a third term as evidence that the founders saw a two-term limit as a bulwark against a monarchy, although his Farewell Address suggests that he was not seeking re-election because of his age. Thomas Jefferson also contributed to the convention of a two-term limit when he wrote in 1807, "if some termination to the services of the chief Magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally four years, will in fact become for life."[1] Jeffersons immediate successors, James Madison and James Monroe, adhered to the two-term principle as well. In a new political atmosphere several years later, Andrew Jackson continued the precedent.

Prior to Franklin D. Roosevelt, few Presidents attempted to serve for more than two terms. Ulysses S. Grant sought a third term in 1880 after serving from 1869 to 1877, but narrowly lost his party's nomination to James Garfield. Grover Cleveland tried to serve a third term (and second consecutive term) in 1896, but did not have enough support in the wake of the Panic of 1893. Cleveland lost support to the Silverites led by William Jennings Bryan, and declined to head the Gold Democrat ticket, though he did endorse the Gold Democrats. Theodore Roosevelt succeeded to the presidency upon William McKinley's assassination and was himself elected in 1904 to a full term, serving from 1901 to 1909. He sought to be elected to a (non-consecutive) term in 1912 but lost to Woodrow Wilson. Wilson himself tried to get a third term in 1920,[citation needed] by deadlocking the convention; he deliberately blocked the nomination of his Secretary of the Treasury and son-in-law, William Gibbs McAdoo. However, Wilson was too unpopular even within his own party at the time, and James M. Cox was nominated. In 1940, Franklin D. Roosevelt became the only president to be elected to a third term; supporters cited the war in Europe as a reason for breaking with precedent.

In the 1944 election, during World War II, Roosevelt won a fourth term (and began it the following year), but suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and died in office. He was the first and only President to have served more than two terms. Near the end of the 1944 campaign, Republican nominee Thomas E. Dewey, the governor of New York, announced support of an amendment that would limit future presidents to two terms. According to Dewey, "Four terms, or sixteen years, is the most dangerous threat to our freedom ever proposed."[2]

The Republican-controlled 80th Congress approved a 22nd Amendment in March 1947;[3] it was signed by Speaker of the House Joseph W. Martin and acting President pro tempore of the Senate William F. Knowland.[4] Nearly four years later, in February 1951, enough states ratified the amendment for its adoption. Then-President Harry S. Truman was excluded from the amendment's restrictions but ultimately decided not to seek another term in 1952.[3]

The Congress proposed the Twenty-second Amendment on March 24, 1947.[5] The proposed amendment was adopted on February 27, 1951. The following states ratified the amendment:

Ratification was completed on February 27, 1951. The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states:

In addition, the following states voted to reject the amendment:

Visit link:
Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purposes as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision inMcDonald v. City of Chicago(08-1521). The plaintiff inMcDonaldchallenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through theincorporation doctrine.However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.

However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, andwhat level of scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment.

Recent case law since Heller suggests that courts are willing to, for example, uphold

See constitutional amendment.

Original post:
Second Amendment | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia ...

Model Erin Wasson attends "The Heimlich Maneuver" screening at Soho Grand Hotel in NYC on June 27, 2012 (Rob Kim/Getty photo)

Singer Rihanna attends the DKMS' 5th Annual Gala: Linked Against Leukemia honoring Rihanna & Michael Clinton hosted by Katharina Harf at Cipriani Wall Street on April 28, 2011 in New York City. (Andrew H. Walker, Getty Images)

Rihanna attends the "Alexander McQueen: Savage Beauty" Costume Institute Gala at The Metropolitan Museum of Art on May 2, 2011 in New York City. (Stephen Lovekin, Getty Images)

TV personality Kelly Osbourne (tattoo detail) attends the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center's "An Evening" benefiting homeless youth services at Sunset Tower on January 23, 2012 in West Hollywood, California. (David Livingston, Getty Images)

TV personality Kelly Osbourne (tattoo detail) attends the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center's "An Evening" benefiting homeless youth services at Sunset Tower on January 23, 2012 in West Hollywood, California. (David Livingston, Getty Images)

Singer Trisha Yearwood attends a Celebration of Paul Newman's Dream to Benefit the SeriousFun Children's Network at Avery Fisher Hall, Lincoln Center on April 2, 2012 in New York City. (Larry Busacca, Getty Images)

Trisha Yearwood performs onstage at the Songwriters Hall of Fame 42nd Annual Induction and Awards at The New York Marriott Marquis Hotel - Shubert Alley on June 16, 2011 in New York City. (Larry Busacca, Getty Images)

Actress Angelina Jolie arrives at the 18th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards at The Shrine Auditorium on January 29, 2012 in Los Angeles, California. (Jason Merritt, Getty Images)

Actress Angelina Jolie arrives at the 18th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards at The Shrine Auditorium on January 29, 2012 in Los Angeles, California. (Jason Merritt, Getty Images)

Actress Kyra Sedgwick arrives at the 18th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards at The Shrine Auditorium on January 29, 2012 in Los Angeles, California. (Jason Merritt, Getty Images)

Original post:
Brantley Gilbert Inks His Love For The Second Amendment ...

Shown here is a spring-assisted knife.(AP)

Once overshadowed by the hot-button gun rights debate, laws restricting knife sales and possession are the new "second front" in the battle to preserve Second Amendment rights.

The issue has gained more attention in recent years -- most recently in Baltimore, where obscure knife laws have surfaced at the center of the Freddie Gray death case.Well before that case, though, the nonprofit advocacy group Knife Rights has been steadily working in state capitals across the country to roll back or repeal longstanding knife bans and restrictions.

And they've seen a string of successes.

Weve introduced the Second Amendment to a significant number of people who never considered it their amendment, said Doug Ritter, who founded Knife Rights in Arizona in 2009.

The group argues that possessing and carrying any kind of blade is, as with guns, a right enshrined in the Constitution.They've deployed that argument to, so far, help 10 states wipe most -- if not all -- knife restrictions from the books. It also has successfully advocated for so-called preemption laws in eight states, blocking local jurisdictions from circumventing state law with their own, stricter regulations.

Not all repeals are the same -- some leave laws against switchblades like stilettos on the books. But others are comprehensive, like in Oklahoma and Maine, which just legalized switchblades, in March and April respectively.

Knife Rights first victory was in 2010, when it worked to get all switchblades, dirks and daggers legalized in New Hampshire. Bills in several other states are currently pending.

Theres no blood running in the streets, no state has come back and said we shouldnt have done this and tried to reinstate [laws], Ritter said.

Contrary to the image of gang members carrying butterfly knives to the local rumble, people carry knives for a multitude of reasons, and it is not to maim or kill, Ritter said. The reality is, millions of Americans use and own knives at home, work, and recreation. But every once in a while someone uses a knife as an arm, to protect the family.

Read more:
2nd Amendment advocates push to repeal switchblade, other ...

2015 NRA Convention Interview with Michigan 2nd Amendment Supporters
NRA Convention Interview outside of the Allen Jackson concert in Nashville, Tennessee. Chris and Marty Welch are from michigan and are firm supporters of the Second Amendment. They attend...

By: Itsa Nunyabiz

See the original post here:
2015 NRA Convention Interview with Michigan 2nd Amendment Supporters - Video

Second Amendment Youth Leadership Conference Wrap-Up

By: NRA

Read this article:
Second Amendment Youth Leadership Conference Wrap-Up - Video

PASTOR SAYS BLACKS NEED TO GET GUNS AND FIGHT BACK
A Christian Pastor in the wake of the murder of Walter Scott, says that nonviolence does not work in today society, and that black people need to use their second amendment right of getting...

By: The Jedi

See original here:
PASTOR SAYS BLACKS NEED TO GET GUNS AND FIGHT BACK - Video