Category Archives: Second Amendment

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Washington, D.C.s ban on handgun possession unconstitutionally infringed on Second Amendment rights. Yet a District law prohibiting with few exceptions ammunition in residents homes lingers on the books.

What good is the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense if you cannot have ammunition? How can residents look to the law to understand what conduct is and is not illegal? Should they follow the statutes? The court? Get confused and forgo their rights?

In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that if a statute is in opposition to the Constitution, the Constitution must govern.

Following that principle, the criminal code reform commission established by the City Council has reviewed the districts criminal laws and identified two statutes Unlawful Possession of Ammunition (D.C. Code 7-2506.01) and Alteration of Identifying Marks of Weapons (D.C. Code 22-4512) as being unconstitutional.

The commissions findings rest on two cases in D.C. courts: Herrington v. United States and Reid v. United States.

In Herrington, the trial court had ruled that all the government needs to prove to obtain [an unlawful possession of ammunition] conviction are that the defendant possessed ammunition, and that he did so knowingly and intentionally. The D.C. Court of Appeals disagreed, writing, a flat ban on the possession of handgun ammunition in the home is not just incompatible with the Second Amendment, but clearly so.

Yet it ruled that the government may convict a defendant of unlawful possession of ammunition if it also proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he had not lawfully registered a firearm of the same gauge or caliber as the ammunition he possesses.

The commissions report identifies the statute as unconstitutional but advises lawmakers to cure that by amending the law to incorporate the courts ruling.

The second offense makes it a crime to alter or obliterate a firearms serial number. The commissions report observes that the law also permits a jury to infer that a person who possesses a weapon with obliterated markings is the same person who did, in fact, obliterate those markings.

In Reid, the D.C. Court of Appeals recognized that individuals might unknowingly acquire weapons with previously obliterated markings, and that, therefore, the presumption of guilt in the statute is fundamentally unfair and violates due process.

Thirty-four years later, commissioners are just now advising lawmakers to bring the law up to date with the U.S. Constitution.

The commissioners give three reasons why lawmakers should no longer delay updating D.C. firearms laws:

1) to ensure respect for the peoples constitutional rights;

2) to clarify to the general public what precisely constitutes an offense; and

3) to guide practitioners in the future.

For the same reasons, other states should review their criminal codes to ensure that Second Amendment rights, and other constitutional provisions, are protected.

As the Supreme Court stated in McBoyle v. United States in 1931, and had recognized long before that, fair warning should be given to the world in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed. To make the warning fair, so far as possible the line should be clear.

In Heller, the Court wrote that the Second Amendment bears no secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation. In McDonald v. Chicago, the Court held that the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applies to the states.

The D.C. Criminal Code Reform Commission represents a step in the right direction. It has provided a straightforward methodology for reviewing criminal laws in the interest of protecting constitutional rights. It is an approach that all cities and states should consider taking.

See the original post here:
Second Amendment Violations Targeted by Criminal Code Experts - Heritage.org

On Monday, the Supreme Court decided against hearing a case involving the right to carry a firearm outside of one's home. California resident Edward Peruta had challenged a state lawlimiting gun-carrying permits to those showing "good cause." Simply mentioning self-defense is not enough - San Diego policy requires residents to list specific threats they believe they're facing.

Although the right to carry has been a hot topic across the country, Peruta v. California did not interest at least four of the justices, so it will not be added to their docket at this time.

That really peeved off Justices Clarence Thomas, who dissented from the bench.

The Second Amendments core purpose further supports the conclusion that the right to bear arms extends to public carry, Thomas wrote. Even if other Members of the Court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this important question definitively.

Thomas went on to say that he and his colleagues are too removed from everyday American life to understand why this case is so important.

"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," Thomas added.

Newest Justice Neil Gorsuch joined on to Thomas's opinion.

Without the chance to be heard at the Supreme Court, the lower court rulings stands. In a vote of 7-4, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the San Diego restrictions were permissible.

New Requirements for Visa Holders as Partial Travel Ban Goes Into Effect

Read the rest here:
Justice Thomas Chides Colleagues for Ignoring Second Amendment Case - Townhall

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. The Second Amendment, U.S. Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The Tenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution

The aforementioned amendments are clear, at least to those without an agenda.

We offer these amendments to show the lack of logic regarding the decision this week by the U.S. Supreme Court not to consider a challenge to a law in California which restricts the constitutional rights of Americans to carry a gun. California has what it called a good cause law, which means California residents must convince the state they have a valid reason to carry a concealed weapon.

Here is the problem, which is clearly evident when reading the Second Amendment and the Tenth Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right. In other words, it is not a right that is left up to individual states to recognize as they see fit.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The right of Americans to keep and bear arms is specifically a delegated power, which means states do not have the authority to gut the Second Amendment.

Californias law makes little sense anyway, regardless of the U.S. Constitution.

As of February, there were at least 11 states which had passed legislation allowing the carry of concealed weapons without a permit. If the fears of those who want to destroy the Second Amendment are accurate, these 11 states should be a battleground. For the record, the state of Texas has had a concealed carry law for more than 20 years, and has had an open carry law since 2016. The Lone Star State has not returned to the stereotypical days of the wild west, when residents settled disputes with a shootout at high noon on Main Street.

Evidently, Californians cannot be trusted with firearms as much as residents of other states. (Sarcasm noted.)

What states such as California are doing is taking it upon themselves to determine how their residents exercise their constitutional rights contained in the Second Amendment. And a hodgepodge of gun laws based on the whims of the states ignores the Second Amendment.

The rest is here:
Editorial: Target the US Constitution - Amarillo.com

This article appears in the July 2017 issues of the Official Journals of the National Rifle Association.

The drumbeat of fake news continues as the elites disappointed by the 2016 election dedicate themselves to resisting the Trump administration.

Among their many false narratives is that Americans are no longer interested in firearms now that Barack Obama is out of the White House.

At least two big groups of people didnt get that memo.

One is comprised of the 2,045,564 Americans who were queried through the FBIs firearm background check database in April 2017. This was the second busiest April ever for that system. In fact, each month of Trumps presidency has seen over two million firearm-related background checks. Only in 2016, when Americans faced losing their Second Amendment rights forever, did the FBI run more checks during a January to April period.

The other group included the nearly 82,000 people who attended the NRAs Annual Meetings and Exhibits in Atlanta, Georgia in late April. This was our second-highest total of attendees ever. Fifteen acres of guns and gear on display at the Georgia World Congress Center said all that needed to be said about the vitality of Americas firearms industry.

But those werent the only encouraging signs that greeted the NRAs extended family reunion in the Peach State. Our Annual Leadership Forum drew an impressive line-up of speakers. Besides three sitting U.S. Senators (Georgias David Purdue, Alabamas Luther Strange, and Texas Ted Cruz), we heard from Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and Florida Governor Rick Scott. Lt. Col. Allen West and Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke provided a distinguished presence from the uniformed ranks. And rounding out the guest list were Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt, former Major League Baseball great Adam LaRoche, and campus carry advocate Antonia Okafor.

But that was just the undercard, as it were. Because for only the second time in the NRAs history, we welcomed the sitting President of the United States (the last one before him being Ronald Reagan in 1983). For those of us who were on the front lines of the brutal 2016 election (and that included every NRA member present), it was not only an honor to have President Trump address the NRA, but one of the clearest possible lessons of the power the common person still holds in American democracy.

I began my remarks with a montage of film clips showing condescending figures from the political, media, and entertainment establishments dismissing Trumps chances of winning the election, contrasted with footage of the partnership forged between the NRA and Donald Trump. NRA members have always stood apart from the prevailing winds of elite opinion and political correctness to focus on the enduring values that have bound our country together from the beginning.

That resolve was never as evident or necessary as in 2016, when the fate of our country and the Second Amendment literally hung in the balance of the presidential contest. On the one hand was globalist and Second Amendment opponent Hillary Clinton, who claimed that the Supreme Court was wrong to recognize an individual right to keep and bear arms. On the other was Donald Trump, who had a Second Amendment position paper on his campaign website that began, The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. Period. At stake was which of them would appoint the Second Amendments tie-breaking vote on the U.S. Supreme Court.

By the time President Trump addressed the crowd in Atlanta, he had already made that appointment by filling the late Justice Antonin Scalias seat with another constitutional originalist, Neil M. Gorsuch. Once again, we have a majority of support on the Court for our right to keep a gun in our home for self-defense.

President Trump had many stirring things to say during his address. But the line all of us will remember most is when he assured the members of the NRA: you came through for me, and I am going to come through for you.

More than that, however, you the NRAs members came through for America and for the freedoms we hold dear. And American democracy and its elevation of the common man and woman came through for all of us.

As ever, the fight for Americas soul will continue. But that Friday in Atlanta showed with the utmost clarity it is one we can win.

View post:
A New Day for the Second Amendment: Donald Trump Addresses the NRA - NRA ILA

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take a case about the boundaries of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms, by saying it will not review a California self-defense law.

The petitioners in Peruta v. California who asked the Supreme Court to review the case called the controversy "perhaps the single most important unresolved Second Amendment question" left to come before the Supreme Court. The high court's action on Monday will leave that question unresolved.

The question the Supreme Court refused to hear is whether the Second Amendment gives people the right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the high court's decision not to take the case, which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined.

"At issue in this case is whether that [Second Amendment] guarantee protects the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense," Thomas wrote. "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 grant the petition for a writ of certiorari."

He added, "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."

California law generally prevents carrying a handgun outside a home, but concealed carry is allowed for those with a license. Applicants for such a license need to demonstrate "good cause" to obtain the license, which several sheriffs have taken to mean including carrying a handgun for self-defense, as the petitioners noted in their brief to the Supreme Court. But in San Diego, the sheriff defined "good cause" as requiring a "particularized" need for self-defense that separates the applicant from an average applicant.

A three-judge panel found the San Diego County Sheriff's policy unconstitutional, but was reversed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Since the Supreme Court did not take the case, the 9th Circuit's ruling will prevail.

"We should have granted certiorari in this case," Thomas wrote. "The approach taken by the en banc court is indefensible, and the petition raises important questions that this court should address. I see no reason to await another case."

Paul Clement, an attorney who several conservatives hoped to see included on President-elect Trump's Supreme Court short lists when looking to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, is listed as the counsel of record for the petitioners challenging the California policy and 9th Circuit decision.

See more here:
Supreme Court refuses to hear high-stakes Second Amendment handgun case - Washington Examiner

Conservative Review

SCOTUS just made a mockery of biology AND the Second Amendment Conservative Review Over the past few years, we have chronicled a pattern developing in the lower courts on the Second Amendment since the Heller decision. Not that we needed the Supreme Court to affirm the right to self-defense, which predated the Constitution, but the ...

View original post here:
SCOTUS just made a mockery of biology AND the Second Amendment - Conservative Review

The issue revolved aroundBinderup v. the U.S. Attorney General, a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) on behalf ofDaniel Binderup. He pleaded guilty in 1996 to a misdemeanor charge related to a consensual relationship he had with a 17-year-old female employee, receiving three years probation and a $300 fine.Since thecrime could have resulted in jail timeof over one yeartriggering a federal gun law blocks firearms possessionBinderup sought protection of his Second Amendment rights.

The Third Circuit handed down an en banc ruling in Binderups favor and Obamas Department of Justice responded by seeking a Supreme Court review. The result of that review is that the Third Circuit decision stands.

Following SCOTUS announcement, SAF sent a press release to Breitbart News, saying:

The Third Circuit Courts favorableruling combined Binderups case withanother SAF case involvinga man named Julio Suarez. Hewas stopped in 1990 on suspicion of driving while intoxicated.At the time he was carrying a handgun and spare ammunition without a permit.He pleaded guilty in Maryland state court to the charge and received a 180-day suspended sentence and $500 fine. Asa result, he also lost his gun rights because the crime could have resulted in jail timeof more than one year. Neither man was ever incarcerated.

The pro-Second Amendment results ofBinderup v. the U.S. Attorney Generalwere accompanied by news that SCOTUS declined to hearPeruta v. California; a case revolving around Californias good cause requirement for concealed carry license acquisition. On January 12, 2017, Breitbart News reported SCOTUS was petitioned to review Perutain hopes of securing a ruling as to whether the Second Amendment entitles ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in some manner, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.

For now, the Second Amendment community is cheering the ruling inBinderup but remains pensive overPeruta.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host of Bullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Read more here:
SCOTUS Lets Ruling Stand Protecting Second Amendment Rights Following Non-Serious Misdemeanors - Breitbart News

Washington Times

Second Amendment violations targeted by criminal code experts Washington Times Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun possession unconstitutionally infringed on Second Amendment rights. Yet a District law prohibiting with few exceptions ammunition in residents' homes lingers on the books.

Continue reading here:
Second Amendment violations targeted by criminal code experts - Washington Times

A Boston-area professor said last week a middle ground exists between protecting the Second Amendment and methods of reducing gun-related violence.

In Broadening the Perspective on Gun Violence: An Examination of the Firearms Industry, 19902015, Boston University School of Public Health professor Dr. Michael Siegel said he wanted to frame gun research in a different context.

Research on firearm violence tends to focus on two elements the host (i.e., victims of firearm violence) and the environment (i.e., gun policies), he said in the articles introduction, published Thursday. But little attention has been paid to the agent (the gun and ammunition) or the vector (firearm manufacturers, dealers, and the industry lobby).

According to federal data, firearms manufacturing in America tripled between 2000 and 2013 the last year Seigel studied.

In that year alone, manufacturers produced 4.4 million pistols, 4 million rifles, 1.2 million shotguns, 725,000 revolvers and 495,000 miscellaneous firearms, according to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Firearms manufacturing dipped 16 percent the following year to just over 9million produced.

[Manufacturers] have reinvented guns not as a recreational sport or tool but as a symbol of freedom and security, Siegel told ABC News Thursday.

Siegel said the increased manufacturing of high-caliber pistols, especially, points to a consumers growing interest in self-defense and a similar need for a new perspective on gun-related violence as a public health issue, not a criminal justice one.

Ultimately, a better understanding of the products on the market may have implications for improving firearms as consumer products, such as fostering changes in design to increase safety or changes in corporate practices to better protect consumers, as has been done for tobacco products, the report concludes.

Siegel said the study, published last week in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine, doesnt mean to imply gun owners should lose their right to bear arms, but rather society must create an effective way to weed out those more prone to violent acts.

They are not the enemy in public health, he said. There are ways to reduce gun violence while valuing gun owners values. It has been painted too long as mutually exclusive.

Larry Keane, general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, reiterated the organizations long-standing opposition to viewing gun-related violence through a public health lens.

Guns are not a disease, he told ABC News. There is no vaccine or health intervention for the criminal misuse of firearms.

Go here to see the original:
Researcher suggests gun related violence prevention, Second ... - Guns.com

Wait a minute I thought we were supposed to be winning these cases now.

A huge disappointment came out of the Supreme Court today when the justices declined to hear the appeal of the case of Peruta v. California, a potentially game changing case when it comes to the right to carry firearms, particularly concealed, in public. The LA Times has the brief summary, including the fact that there was, unusually, a written dissent to the decision published.

The Supreme Court has rejected a major 2nd Amendment challenge to Californias strict limits on carrying concealed guns in public.

The justices turned away an appeal from gun rights advocates who contended most law-abiding gun owners in San Diego, Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay area are being wrongly denied permits to carry a weapon when they leave home

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the courts action reflects a distressing trend in the treatment of the 2nd Amendment as a disfavored right. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch joined his dissent.

Thomas clearly has it right, since this is once again a case where the courts are allowing the states to regularly impose far greater limitations on Second Amendment rights than virtually any of the others. By declining to hear the appeal, the Supreme Court has a allowed a decision from the 9th Circuit (where else) to stand, supporting those limitations in California.

This was a key case challenging the right of the states to declare that citizens have to show good cause before exercising their natural right to keep and bear arms. California passed a law indicating that concealed carry permits would not be issued to anyone unless they could prove that they faced some level of danger above and beyond that of the average citizen. Earlier this year, William Gore, the Sheriff of San Diego County, wrote an op-ed for the San Diego Union Tribune in which he explained the (heavily flawed, in my opinion) reason for the laws existence.

The good cause requirement is at the heart of the Peruta case. The Sheriffs Department has, since well before my time as sheriff, defined good cause as a set of circumstances that distinguishes the applicant from other members of the general public and causes him or her to be placed in harms way.

The issue in the Peruta lawsuit is really whether Californias good cause requirement can be satisfied by an applicant who simply states that he or she wants to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense, without providing anything more to the issuing agency.

The federal district court held that the San Diego County Sheriffs Departments interpretation of good cause under California law was not unconstitutional and dismissed the applicants case.

The applicants then appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where the state of California eventually stepped in to defend the constitutionality of its concealed licensing statutes.

Todays result throws Heller and a number of other decisions into reverse gear, at least potentially. The Peruta decision seems to apply specifically to concealed carry, but if youre going to release the good cause genie out of the bottle, who knows where that train ride ends? Openly carrying a firearm actually only allows you slightly faster access to it if the need for self-defense arises. This hands an incredible amount of dangerous power to states and municipalities since they can now make themselves the arbiters of what qualifies as good cause for virtually any request. Will you have to be someone who has already been attacked once in order to qualify in the cities and more liberal states? And what if you were only attacked with fists or a knife or a bat? Perhaps such assaults wouldnt qualify either.

If you live in a neighborhood with a high crime rate and regular assaults, I suppose that wont make any difference either. After all, as the Sheriff said, you need to be able to distinguish yourself from other members of the general public in terms of being placed in harms way. If everyone on the West Side of Baltimore is equally liable to be murdered there on any given night, then nobody is particularly distinguishable as being at more risk than anyone else, right?

We need to turn over a number of additional of seats on this court. I have little more to say than this is a disgusting result.

Read the original post:
SCOTUS deals a blow to Second Amendment in Peruta v. California - Hot Air