Category Archives: Second Amendment

SALISBURY Barry Donadio gave remarks on the Second Amendment on June 26 to Republican constituents in Salisbury. The Wicomico County Republican Club of Maryland hosted his appearance and discussion at the Salisbury Chamber of Commerce located at 144 E. Main Street.

Our Second Amendment rights are an individual right and not for only those serving in the military, Donadio said.

During his talk, Donadio expressed his belief that the Second Amendment is a womens rights issue. He said, Every female U.S. citizen over the age of 18 and without a serious criminal history should have the unrestricted right to carry a concealed handgun on their person for self defense.

Donadio told constituents to never give up protecting the rights of the Second Amendment as it is an amendment that safeguards our liberties. Donadio advised the group to legally and safely exercise Second Amendment rights as the U.S. Constitution allows.

In attendance were President of the Wicomico County Republican Club Shawn Bradley, Maryland State Del. Johnny Mautz, Wicomico Republic Central Committeewoman Julie Brewington, Maryland State Sen. Addie Eckardt, Maryland State Circuit Court Judge Matthew A. Maciarello and the first female Police Chief of Salisbury, Barbara Duncan.

Donadio thanked the club for its hospitality.

Donadio led an honorable career in the volunteer ambulance service, volunteer fire department, the military, law enforcement and the United States Secret Service. He was assigned to the White House during the Bush and Obama administrations. He also served in multiple Middle Eastern war zones during his career. In 2013, he authored the book, TWA Flight 800 First Responder Witness Account.

In 2014, he was elected to the Queen Annes County Republican Central Committee in Maryland. He currently serves as President of Public Security LLC. He is also a Maryland State Police certified pistol instructor. In January 2017, Donadio was appointed the sergeant-at-arms of the Maryland Republican Party.

Read more:
Donadio speaks about Second Amendment rights - My Eastern Shore

In 2000, California banned the sale of firearm magazines that can hold more than ten rounds. Residents who already possessed such magazines were grandfathered in. Or at least that was the promise.

Recently, Californians approved Proposition 63, which would have required all grandfathered owners to surrender those magazines by July 1, 2017, or face up to a year in prison. Civil-rights groups challenged the confiscation in federal courts. With less than a day to spare, Judge Roger T. Benitez of the Southern District of California blocked the measure from going into effect. In his thoughtful opinion, he meticulously deconstructs every strawman erected by gun-control advocates, who can show no evidence that limiting magazine sizes will improve public safety. No doubt this decision will be appealed, but the higher courts should take note: Judge Benitez provided a clinic on how to scrutinize laws that restrict Second Amendments rights.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right is not limited to guns; it extends also to the ammunition and magazines that make the gun operable. Californias law directly infringes on that right, by prohibiting law-abiding firearm owners from using their magazine of choice for self-defense. Following Heller, lower courts have held that the government can ban certain types of arms only if it demonstrates that doing so will reasonably protect public safety. Unfortunately, in the past, most judges simply rubber-stamp whatever evidence the state provides to justify gun-control measures, whether or not it fits with public safety.

Not Judge Benitez. He refused to defer to the attorney generals incomplete studies from unreliable sources about a homogenousmass of horrible crimes in jurisdictions near and far for which large capacity magazines were not the cause. With the precision of a scalpel, the court systemically sliced apart the governments unpersuasive efforts to justify the ban. For example, the attorney general had relied on a survey of shootings published by Mother Jones, a progressive magazine. Judge Benitez dismissed the publication, which has rarely been mentioned by any court as reliable evidence. Moreover, he added, it is fair to say that the magazine survey lacks some of the earmarks of a scientifically designed and unbiased collection of data.

What about the governments citation of a survey issued by the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns? Judge Benitez noted that this group, founded by former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, is apparently not a pro-gun rights organization. That is an understatement. More significantly, the court concluded, the survey of 92 mass shootings 82 of which were outside California does not demonstrate that the ban on possession of magazines holding any more than 10 rounds would reasonably help the state to achieve its public-safety goals. Of the ten shootings in California, eight were not known to involve high-capacity magazines, and two involved magazines that were probably illegal. For example, the Santa Monica shooter used high-capacity magazines that were likely shipped from outside California. Criminalizing possession of magazines holding any more than 10 rounds, the court reasoned, likely would not have provided additional protection from gun violence for citizens or police officers or prevented the crime. More important, even though millions of high-capacity magazine are owned nationwide, the mayors survey could identify only six mass-shooting incidents between 2009 and 2013 that employed them.

The governments expert witnesses fared no better. The court dismissed their evidence as little more than anecdotal accounts, collected by biased entities, on which educated surmises and tautological observations are framed. One professor said the ban on high-capacity magazines seems prudent, based only on what Judge Benitez labelled a complete absence of reliable studies done on formal data sets. Another professor justified the ban on large magazines by citing the need to force mass shooters to pause and reload ammunition. That argument, supported by zero data, is belied by common experience. The court noted that during mass shootings in Alexandria, Va., and Fort Hood, Texas, mass shooters were able to reload several times without difficulty; they were stopped only when confronted by another shooter. In any event, why stop at ten rounds? For example, New York sought to limit magazine sizes to seven rounds, because the average defensive gun use involves on average two rounds. Judge Benitez asked, somewhat rhetorically, why not then limit magazines to three rounds?

In other contexts, courts are perfectly comfortable second-guessing the governments need to promote public safety even concerning the rights of aliens outside the United States and in delicate matters of foreign affairs. For example, in recent litigation over the travel ban, federal courts have dismissed the executive branchs goal of protecting national security as a fraud. But with the Second Amendment, courts have regrettably treated the right to keep and bear arms as a second-class right and consistently accepted the governments interests as articles of blind faith.

Not so in Judge Benitezs courtroom. He explained that the phrase gun violence may not be invoked as a talismanic incantation to justify any exercise of state power. In any case, the measures in question would not deter crime. Criminals intent on violence would then equip themselves with multiple weapons, Benitez observed. Or, as Justice Stephen Breyer noted last year in an opinion striking down Texass abortion laws, determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statutes and safety measures, are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by a new overlay of regulations. (Of course, the right to keep and bear arms is framed in the Constitution; a right to privacy is not.) Criminals bent on breaking the law will break the law. Confiscation measures like Proposition 63 punish law-abiding citizens, limit their ability to defend themselves, and have at best a negligible impact on public safety.

On the same day that Judge Benitez issued his important decision, another federal judge in Sacramento reached the opposite result, allowing the confiscation measure to go into effect. The California attorney general will no doubt seek an emergency stay from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to nullify Judge Benitezs decision. Second Amendment rights, alas, have not fared well in that court. Because of the urgency of this case, sooner or later an emergency petition may wind up on the desk of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who supervises appeals from California. Justice Kennedy joined the Heller decision in 2008 and two years later joined the follow-up case of McDonald v. City of Chicago. But since 2010, the Court has not heard arguments in any Second Amendment case.

Regrettably, last week the Supreme Court turned away another case from California that concerned the right to carry outside the home. Only Justice Clarence Thomas and his newest colleague, Justice Neil Gorsuch, disagreed: The Courts decision to deny certiorari in this case reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right, Thomas wrote. Over the last seven years, the justices have hesitated to expand gun rights beyond allowing law-abiding citizens to keep a firearm in the home. Proposition 63 is radically different from previous appeals: It attempts to take away what law-abiding citizens already have. Perhaps now that the fear of confiscation has come to fruition, five justices will intervene and ensure that Americans are not punished for exercising their constitutional rights.

READ MORE: Its Still a Mad, Mad California Californias Medicaid-Spending Crisis Californias Calexit Craziness

Josh Blackman is a constitutional-law professor at the South Texas College of Law in Houston, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and the author of Unraveled: Obamacare, Religious Liberty, and Executive Power.

Read more:
A Federal Judge Halts California's Confiscation of High-Capacity Magazines - National Review

MONTROSE About 30 attended the Lee County Young Republicans second meeting Saturday evening at the Tri-State Gun Club in Montrose.

The first meeting of the newly-formed GOP group was devoted to the First Amendment. The Second Amendment, stating 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, was the focus of Saturdays meeting.

Each was given a pocket-sized Constitution of the United States book provided by the Wapello County Republicans, that were represented at the meeting. There were sign-up sheets for upcoming events this week, such as the Donnellson Fourth of July Parade and the Lee County Fair.

Tri-State Gun Club President Dave Hunold presented a program on gun safety, which he reduced to four rules.

He said if everyone followed these four rules there would be no such thing as accidental injury involving a firearm.

The first rule is treat every gun as if it is loaded, Hunold said.

Hunold demonstrated that a person should always want to safety-check it when they pick up a gun.

Secondly, Hunold said one should never point the rifle at anything you cant pay for or replace.

The third rule is to keep ones finger off the trigger unless one intends to use the gun.

Hunold demonstrated how to use a gun. He described the design and model of three types of guns a revolver, semi automatic pistol and semi automatic shot gun. He also informed everyone about the most important parts of a gun: the muzzle, trigger, barrel and the magazine.

Des Moines County Co-President Eric Marshall spoke to the group about gun control.

The firearm comes in as a device of protection, Marshall said. Its something for Americans to protect themselves from those that wish to do them harm.

He added that there is an irresponsible and responsible way to use a gun. He said as long as it is properly handled there shouldnt be any problems.

He explained how there are some restrictions on gun usage in different countries and in the United States.

Marshall said there is a lot more publicity about guns being used improperly than instances when they are used properly.

After Marshall spoke, Wapello County Republicans Chair Trudy Caviness announced there will be a trip to the State Capitol at 10:30 a.m. Tuesday, July 18. Lunch will be provided at the Republican headquarters. Anyone interested should contact Caviness at (641)-684-7585 by July 14

After the meeting was over everyone was invited to participate in trap shooting.

Lee County Young Republican Chair Jordean Stein said it was a great turnout, with the number of young and older people that came. The next meeting will be about the Third Amendment at the National Keokuk Cemetery on Saturday, Sept. 2.

More here:
Young Republicans get a crash course in the 2nd Amendment - Fort Madison Daily Democrat

The recent Second Amendment event in Belchertown has spurred some community discussion, if not a lot of real dialogue, and some introspection (Second Amendment rally in Belchertown draws toughest sheriff, gun rights activists, June 19).

Gun owners who belong in neither of the obvious camps have mostly been silent. But I dont think we can justify that silence any longer, so here goes. Understand that I am an enthusiastic gun owner. I am fascinated by their history (a significant window into the history of the Valley), and even their aesthetics. I love to hunt. I enjoy shooting at local ranges. Some of the best times of my life have been spent with friends and family out in the field or at the range.

However, the rules of gun ownership I learned when young came with a powerful and absolute message about responsibility. Gun safety is always the central issue. If less-than-responsible gun ownership threatens peoples safety, that perverts what gun ownership is about and it has to be addressed, including through reasonable regulations.

Im a historian, too, and have been interested in guns for a long time, so Ive researched the Second Amendment. Almost everybody who talks about the Second Amendment misunderstands or misrepresents what it means, often on purpose. Its not that complicated, but its not what youd expect. The Second Amendment was added to the Constitution for two reasons.

First, as part of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment was intended to reassure citizens nervously considering ratification of the Constitution. The Constitution proposed a strong central federal government. The Bill of Rights was added to show that citizens that their most important individual rights would be protected under that new form of government. So, among other individual rights, the Bill of Rights affirmed the existing common law right of individual citizens (mostly white male property owners, at the time) to keep and bear arms for legitimate individual purposes self-defense, defense of the home and property, hunting, and recreation. Doing so helped to get the Constitution ratified.

Secondly, by affirming that individual right, the Second Amendment sought to ensure that citizens could be armed, and familiar enough with arms that, at need, they could defend their legitimately constituted government as members of an organized and trained (well regulated) militia. That well regulated militia preamble was a hoped-for outcome. It was not a precondition for or a limitation on the individual right, which stood on its own. Despite a brief judicial vogue for the militia-only theory during the mid-20th century, the Second Amendment was never intended to restrict the keeping and bearing of arms to militias or their members. It was always first and foremost an individual right the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment was also never intended to be a means by which disgruntled citizens could take up arms against their legitimate government. The exact opposite is true, as both the Whiskey Rebellion and Shays Rebellion demonstrated. Thomas Jeffersons fiercely fanciful notion that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants and Hamiltons (and others) discussions of the deterrent effect of armed citizens on the ambitions of those who would be kings by force has been twisted into a we-have-guns-so-we-can-stop-anybody-we-think-is-a-tyrant notion. Thats a perversion of the framers intent, unsupported by any of our history or our case law on the Second Amendment.

Unlike other framers like Washington and Hamilton, Jefferson never had to take direct personal responsibility for the consequences of armed conflict. As ambassador to France during the French Revolution, he supported that revolution long after its ideals had dissolved into grotesquely vengeful blood-letting. He never came to terms with that failure, and it shows in his bloodier musings.

Finally, even the most recent Supreme Court opinion (Heller v. D.C.), penned by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, explicitly states that the Second Amendment is (and has always been) subject to reasonable regulation, just like every other individual constitutional right. We cant regulate individual constitutional rights out of existence (though some may try), but we are required to balance individual rights against the needs of society at large. It has always been a moving, precarious balance. It always will be.

Those who rallied in Belchertown to praise disgraced Sheriff Joe Arpaio were mostly making up what they wanted to be true about the Second Amendment and the world. For the most part, they simply got it wrong. But so do those who, appalled by the toll of gun violence (but without any real background in the matter), agitate for just getting rid of the awful thing and making it go away.

Neither of those sides is ever going to win, because neither is seeking a collective future based on what is real in our history and law, or on what is politically or practically possible. What must happen and I believe will happen, after years of hard work is the development of reasonable, consistent gun regulations nationwide. It is something the Second Amendment allows and the Constitution expects.

The conflict over what gun rights are or ought to be is not going to go away. As the Belchertown event showed, constitutional rights become a vehicle for peoples identities. Proposing to change them in fundamental ways becomes an intolerable assault on personal identity and the America that people insist their own world view defines (this happens with the First Amendment and the rest, as well).

With respect to the Second Amendment, those of us who claim to be informed and responsible gun owners are going to have to carry most of the freight during the years of effort it will take to create reasonable, consistent gun regulations. In the process, we can expect to catch bad words, mud, stones, and worse things flung by folks on all sides of the question who can only tolerate the notion of a future society formed around their own preferences. Its better to know that going in. But we have to go in.

In the end, being an American is about being a responsible citizen in a diverse, pluralistic society. Thats not at all a modern notion its what the framers were talking about all along. And while gun ownership is an important part of citizenship for some of us, being a responsible citizen is a much bigger, more complicated, and challenging task. Simply owning a gun is not enough.

Jonathan Tucker, of Florence, is a native of Amherst and a writer, musician, ecologist and historian.

Read the original here:
Columnist Jonathan Tucker: Nation needs reasonable gun regulations - GazetteNET

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. -- Many cherish their right to keep and bear arms.

But, Second Amendment rights are not without controversy.

The Second Amendment ruffles lots of political feathers.

Here's what the amendment says:

"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."

Having just fought off the strongest military power in the world to gain independence, the founders were acutely aware that the ability of the people to access arms to keep government in check was vital.

But those today who argue for increased restrictions on gun ownership point to the amendment's use of the term "militia," and say that this refers to the modern day National Guard, not all citizens.

Gun proponents push back by saying that militias at the time of the Constitution's ratification included all able-bodied males over the age of 16, who could be pressed into defense of their land and rights.

For years, the Supreme Court refused to rule that the Second Amendment was incorporated-meaning that it applied to all the states. This is why states have historically had a patchwork of different rules for gun ownership and use.

But the Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v. The City of Chicago in 2010 that the Second Amendment was incorporated, and gun rights advocates were delighted since this seemed to mean that gun restrictions would be ruled unconstitutional.

But this ruling did little to quell the Second Amendment controversy since the amendment itself contains the term "well regulated." Regulation implies some set of rules or standards, and even if one believes that the people are the militia in this amendment - not the National Guard- it is hard to imagine that the government doesn't have an interest in regulating arms to some extent. Even the term "arms" raises questions. Does this mean simply guns, or can we add bazookas and drones to the list? After all, people can own both.

Even the court's most conservative justice of the 20th century, Antonin Scalia, seemed to agree with some regulations of arms, at least broadly defined. This is an issue that will likely never be settled, but it's important to know the constitutional basis for all the controversy.

(Brian Calfano)

Continued here:
Analysis: Second Amendment Rights Come with Controversy - Story - OzarksFirst.com

On Monday, the Supreme Court failed to grant certiorari to an important Second Amendment case.

The case, Peruta v California, has been closely watched by gun rights and gun control advocates, law enforcement and legal experts nationwide, and many had predicted that while the Supreme Court has been unwilling to take on other concealed weapons cases this one could be the vehicle to decide how far the Second Amendment extends beyond the home reported Kristina Davis of the San Diego Union Tribune.

Edward Peruta and other gun owners who were denied concealed-carry permits by the San Diego County California sheriff filed a petition asking the high court to consider hearing their case, which they lost on appeal at the Far Left 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Edward Perutas journey to the Supreme Court began back in 2009. Bob Adelmann reports that Perutas application for a concealed weapons permit was turned down by the San Diego Sheriff because the law stated he had to show good cause why he needed such a permit. Strict interpretations of that law impelled Peruta, with the help of numerous public-interest law firms and pro-gun groups, to sue. His case wended its way through the courts, winding up on the docket of the 9th Circuit of Appeals. A panel of three judges ruled in Perutas favor, but a full appeals court hearing reversed, saying:

the protection of the Second Amendment whatever the scope of that protection may be simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public.

Peruta and the California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation filed a brief with the Supreme Court seeking the courts opinion in the case, claiming that the California law could lead to a prohibition on carrying a gun outside the home for any reason.

Our friends at Gun Owners of America filed an amicus brief that challenged Californias restrictive good cause requirement for concealed carry licenses. Read GOA's brief here.

Through its Monday decision not to accept the case the Supreme Court let stand the 9th Circuit of Appeals decision.

Adelmann notes it takes four Supreme Court justices to consider a lower courts ruling, and, despite the addition of Justice Neil Gorsuch to the bench, just one other justice could be found to vote to take the case.

Gorsuch concurred in Justice Clarence Thomas eloquent dissent that criticized the majority for its continuing reticence to rule on important Second Amendment issues.

Thomas dissent should be required reading for everyone concerned about how constitutional rights are abrogated through denial. Wrote Thomas:

At issue in this case is whether that guarantee protects the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. Neither party disputes that the issue is one of national importance, or that the courts of appeals have already weighed in extensively. I would therefore [have granted] the petition for a writ of certiorari.

California generally prohibits the average citizen from carrying a firearm in public spaces, either openly or concealed. With a few limited exceptions, the State prohibits open carry altogether. It proscribes concealed carry unless a resident obtains a license by showing good cause, among other criteria.

In the county where petitioners reside [San Diego], the sheriff has interpreted good cause to require an applicant to show that he has a particularized need, substantiated by documentary evidence, to carry a firearm for self-defense. The sheriffs policy specifies that concern for ones personal safety does not alone satisfy this requirement.

Instead, an applicant must show a set of circumstances that distinguish the applicant from the mainstream and cause him to be placed in harms way. [A] typical citizen fearing for his personal safety by definition cannot distinguish himself from the mainstream. As a result, ordinary, law-abiding, responsible citizens, [as quoted from the Supreme Courts decision in District of Columbia v. Heller], may not obtain a permit for concealed carry of a firearm in public spaces.

Consequently, with Californias injunction against open carry, and San Diegos injunction against concealed carry, citizens are, wrote Thomas, unable to bear firearms in public in any manner. He added, I find it extremely improbable that the Framers [of the Constitution] understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen.

Thomas came close to putting his finger on why the present majority doesnt want to take cases like Peruta says Adelmann: fear of giving Second Amendment supporters a clear victory that anti-gun members of the court want to avoid.

Thomas noted that the 9th Circuit focused only on the specific term good cause and left out consideration of the much broader, much more important, and to the majority, much more dangerous, proposition: The approach taken by the [9th Circuit Court] is indefensible, and the [present] petition raises important questions that this Court should address. Had the Ninth Circuit answered the question actually at issue in this case, it likely would have been compelled to reach the opposite result. (emphasis ours)

However, what makes Justice Thomas dissent so compelling is his unprecedented attack on the hypocrisy of the anti-gun elite on the Court:

For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it

Justice Thomas is right the Framers of the Constitution did not reserve the right of self-defense to those elite members of society whose position or wealth provides them with armed guards. When the courts fail to enforce the promises of the Constitution, then it is up to the legislature to act. We urge Congress to take up and pass a national concealed carry bill.

The rest is here:
Is the Second Amendment Only for the Elite? - ConservativeHQ

The court has seldom addressed the scope of Second Amendment rights. In 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep guns at home for self-defense.

Since then, the court has said little about what other laws may violate the Second Amendment. In the lower courts, few challenges to gun control laws since the Heller decision have succeeded.

But legal experts say it is only a matter of time before the court confronts the question of whether and how the Second Amendment applies outside the home.

The case, Peruta v. California, No. 16-894, concerned a state law that essentially bans carrying guns openly in public and allows carrying concealed weapons only if applicants can demonstrate good cause. The challengers, several individuals and gun-rights groups, sued San Diego and Yolo Counties, saying that officials there interpreted good cause so narrowly as to make it impossible to carry guns in public for self-defense.

San Diego, for instance, defined good cause to require proof that the applicant was in harms way, adding that simply fearing for ones personal safety alone is not considered good cause.

In a 7-to-4 ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, said there was no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed weapon.

Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment whatever the scope of that protection may be simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public, Judge William A. Fletcher wrote for the majority.

The court did not decide whether the Second Amendment allows leeway for states to ban carrying guns in public.

There may or may not be a Second Amendment right for a member of the general public to carry a firearm openly in public, Judge Fletcher wrote. The Supreme Court has not answered that question, and we do not answer it here.

The Supreme Court also turned down a second case on gun rights, this one about the constitutionality of a law prohibiting people convicted of serious crimes from owning guns. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor noted that they would have granted review, but they gave no reasons.

The case concerned a federal law that prohibits possessing a gun after a conviction of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. The law has an exception for any state offense classified by the laws of the state as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.

In separate cases, two Pennsylvania men said the law was unconstitutional as applied to them.

They were convicted of minor and nonviolent crimes decades ago, they said, and received no jail time. Though the laws under which they were convicted allowed for the theoretical possibility of sentences longer than two years, they argued, they should not have been stripped of a constitutional right for that reason.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, ruled in their favor.

In urging the Supreme Court to hear the case, Sessions v. Binderup, No. 16-847, the Justice Department said the appeals court had opened the courthouse doors to an untold number of future challenges by other individuals based on their own particular offenses, histories and personal circumstances.

The decision below, the governments brief said, threatens public safety and poses serious problems of judicial administration because it requires judges to make ad hoc assessments of the risks of allowing convicted felons to possess firearms a high-stakes task that Congress has already determined cannot be performed with sufficient reliability, and one for which the judiciary is particularly ill suited.

Follow Adam Liptak on Twitter @adamliptak.

Get politics and Washington news updates via Facebook, Twitter and in the Morning Briefing newsletter.

A version of this article appears in print on June 27, 2017, on Page A13 of the New York edition with the headline: Supreme Court Rejects Another Case on Guns.

See the original post here:
Supreme Court Turns Down Case on Carrying Guns in Public - New York Times

Audio clip: Listen to audio clip.

FOX's Eben Brown has this week's 'FOX Bullet Points':

I'm Eben Brown.

Second Amendment advocates are a bit upset the U.S. Supreme Court didn't take up the case of a California man suing over a denial of a concealed carry permit. In Peruta v. California, the sheriff in San Diego says he can refuse to issue concealed carry permits if the applicant doesn't show a real need for one. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch published a dissent to the court's rejection, calling it 'distressing.'

Meanwhile, in Kansas, it'll be legal to carry without a permit on college campus' starting this Saturday.

You know PayPal, and Square, and Stripe? All three are used more and more by retailers to complete electronic payments. But the three outfits, which are not banks, are now the target of a class action lawsuit. Firearms retailer Blar Gladwin of California, who has his federal firearms license, say the three agencies deny him their services because he sells guns. Gladwin claims it's a civil rights violation.

Those are your Bullet Points! I'm Eben Brown, FOX News!

See the original post here:
Supreme Court Justices Call Second Amendment Case 'Distressing ... - FOX News Radio (blog)

Fabrizio Vianello, Second Amendment supporter and owner at Eltenda Channel on Youtube, photographed in Illinois with his Bushmaster AR-15 rifle and his dog Peanut. (Photo: Ben Philippi)

Originally from Italy, Fabrizio Vianello fell in love with an American girl and immigrated to America. Although still fond of his homeland, Fabrizio loves his new country for its infinite possibilities, freedom, and especially, the right to keep and bear arms.

Im the new kid in town.

I moved to America from Europe a few years ago, and since then I have learned so much about what it means to be an American and the importance of the Bill of Rights. People like me have come from all over the world looking for the kind of freedom that America was known for.

The Second Amendment, like all the others, is one of the basic rights that every American in every state should defend. I am surprised at the disinformation campaign of the media and the propaganda against firearms and I hope the people of this great country never forget the importance of their right to bear arms.

Godspeed!

Read more perspectives on Americas gun culture in Ben Philippis book We The People.

Original post:
Dispatches from gun country: This Italian immigrant loves the Second Amendment - Guns.com

Many California firearm owners were given a reprieve Thursday from making a tough decision after a federal judge temporarily blocked a key provision of the states gun control laws approved last year in the wake of the San Bernardino terrorist attack.

At the request of attorneys for the National Rifle Assn., U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez issued a preliminary injunction blocking a law that requires Californians to dispose of large-capacity ammunition magazines by Saturday or face fines and possible jail time.

If this injunction does not issue, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of otherwise law-abiding citizens will have an untenable choice: become an outlaw or dispossess ones self of lawfully acquired property, Benitez wrote. That is a choice they should not have to make.

The NRA and its state affiliate are still pursuing lawsuits seeking court decisions on the law, and those may take months to resolve.

NRA attorney C.D. Michel welcomed the granting of the preliminary injunction.

My clients are pleased the Court affirmed that the Second Amendment is not a second class right, and that law abiding gun owners have a right to choose to have these magazines to help them defend themselves and their families, Michel said in a statement.

The plaintiffs include gun owners from the San Diego area and the California Rifle and Pistol Assn., the NRAs state affiliate which is headed by Michel, an attorney for the national group.

Gun rights advocates and some law enforcement officials said few people who own the newly outlawed magazines have turned them in to police and expect many people will hang on to them until courts decide the pending challenges to the law on the merits.

Until this is litigated, I think some will hold on [to the magazines], Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood said. Others who are concerned about ramifications might sell them in another state.

No magazines have been turned in to the Kern County Sheriffs Office in the last three months, he said.

Youngblood, who is immediate past president of the California State Sheriffs Assn., said his deputies would not be going to homes and businesses with the primary purpose of searching for the outlawed magazines, even if the law had not been blocked.

If they show up in an investigation, they could be a tool for further investigation, he said.

In 2000, California banned the sale of large-capacity magazines, but those who owned the devices were allowed to keep them. That changed when 63% of California voters approved Proposition 63 in November. That initiative, and legislation adopted at the time, bans the possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Sean Brady, an attorney for gun owners, estimates tens of thousands of Californians still have large-capacity magazines. The law says that options for owners of the magazines include transferring them to a federally licensed gun dealer, destroying them or turning them over to law enforcement.

Anyone in possession of a banned magazine starting Saturday would have faced a citation for an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed $100 per magazine, or could have been found guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $100 and up to a year in jail.

Patrick Lovette, a resident of San Diego County and a plaintiff in one of the lawsuits, says the ban on the magazines is unfair and unwarranted. The retired Navy veteran said in court papers that he owns multiple magazines that he would like to pass on to his heirs.

Updates from Sacramento

But Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, the primary proponent of Proposition 63, said the law was important to enforce.

Large-capacity magazines serve only one purpose: efficient and effective mass murder, Newsom said. Used in almost every mass shooting in the U.S. since the 1990s, large-capacity magazines enable murderers to unleash dozens of rounds without having to stop and reload. They belong in theaters of war, not peaceful communities.

State Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra argued in court papers that the ban on large-capacity magazines is justified because they have been found at the scenes of mass shootings at an Orlando nightclub, Columbine High School, Sandy Hook Elementary School and in San Bernardino, where two terrorists in 2015 killed 14 people attending a holiday party.

These large-capacity magazines are disproportionately used in crime, and feature prominently in some of the most serious crime, including homicides, mass shootings, and killings of law enforcement officers, Becerra said in his written answer to the lawsuit.

In a statement released Thursday night, Becerra vowed to defend the state law.

Restricting large-capacity magazines and preventing them from ending up in the wrong hands is critical for the well-being of our communities, he said in the statement. I will defend the will of California voters because we cannot continue to lose innocent lives due to gun violence.

The restraining order was sought by the California Rifle and Pistol Assn., which argued that the ban on large-capacity magazines violates both the 2nd Amendment rights of Californians to bear arms as well as protections against taking property without due process or compensation.

Banning magazines over ten rounds is no more likely to reduce criminal abuse of guns than banning high horsepower engines is likely to reduce criminal abuse of automobiles, the lawsuit says.

Becerra argued in court papers that plaintiffs have not demonstrated that any of these constitutional guarantees are even implicated by the challenged legislation, let alone violated by it. Possession of [large-capacity magazines] is not protected by the Second Amendment.

patrick.mcgreevy@latimes.com

Twitter: @mcgreevy99

ALSO

Gun control language tucked into California's budget bill, irking the NRA

Original post:
Federal judge blocks new California gun control law requiring disposal of large-capacity magazines - Los Angeles Times