Category Archives: Second Amendment

The Supreme Court will not intervene in a lower courts decision that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to carry a concealed weapon in public.

Gun-rights advocates had asked the court to review a California law that gives local sheriffs power to require that those seeking concealed-carry permits show a particular need, such as a threat.

Whether the Second Amendment secures an individual right to bear arms for self-defense outside the home is the perhaps the single most important unresolved Second Amendment question, said a brief filed by the California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation.

Because California bans carrying weapons openly in public, the association said the state law can effectively prohibit carrying a gun in any manner outside the home.

In a 7 to 4 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that the San Diego sheriffs policy of reserving concealed-carry licenses only for those who can document a special need for self-defense passes constitutional muster.

Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, the court concluded 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.

The Supreme Court has also upheld laws in Maryland and New Jersey that impose such restrictions on concealed-carry permits.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, said the court should have accepted the case.

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, adding. 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.

See the article here:
Supreme Court declines to review California concealed-weapon law - Washington Post

From Mondays opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch), dissenting from denial of certiorari in Peruta v. California:

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.

Agree with it or disagree, but it strikes me as a powerful articulation of its position. (The Court declined to hear the case, and thus left open the question whether the Second Amendment secures a right of law-abiding adults to carry guns outside the home a subject on which lower courts continue to be split; Thomas and Gorsuch were urging the court to hear the case.)

Visit link:
'For those of us who work in marbled halls the Second Amendment might seem antiquated' - Washington Post

Gun rights advocates gathered outside the Utah State Capitol for Gun Appreciation Day in Salt Lake City in 2013.(Photo: Rick Bowmer, AP)

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court refusedMonday to take on the next big battle over the Second Amendment: carrying guns in public.

The justices won'theara challenge to a California law that limits who can carry a concealed gun in public -- a restrictionthat proponents of gun rights consider unconstitutional, but which the high court has yet to decide.

In a related case, the justices also refused to hear the federal government's appeal of a lower court ruling that allowed two men with criminal records to win back their right to possess firearms despite a lifetime federal ban. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have heard the case.

Read more:

Supreme Court declares churches eligible for some public funds

Supreme Court will hear religious liberty challenge to gay weddings

Supreme Court punts on cross-border shooting, two immigration cases

On the guns-in-public case, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented,arguing that a landmark Supreme Court decision in 2008 upholding the right to keep guns at home suggested that the right extends beyond the home.

"I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen," Thomas wrote for the pair.

It's been nine years since the court upheld the right to keep handguns at home for self-defense, in what was perhaps the most important opinion written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Two years later, the court extended that right to states and localities.

Since then, however, the court has avoided most Second Amendment cases, including those challenging state and local assault weapons bans, firearms protections, and restrictions on young adults. In 2014, it declined to consider a challenge to a New Jersey law that restricts most residents from carrying guns in public.

Most states currently allow guns outside the home with few restrictions. But in states that do limit carrying guns openly or in concealed fashion --including Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey and New York --lower courts have almost always upheld those restrictions.

Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit last June upheld the California law by a 7-4 vote, reversing a 2014 ruling from a three-judge panel that had struck down restrictions imposed by two of the state's counties, based on California law.

"We hold that the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms by members of the general public," Judge William Fletcher wrote for the majority.

California's law, like those ineight other states and the District of Columbia, generally requires citizens to show "good cause" before being granted a concealed-carry license. In other states, licenses are issued to most citizens without felony convictions who are not considered dangerous or mentally unstable.

Judge ConsueloCallahan's main dissent contended that the law's wide berth has the effect of banning any guns in public. "While states may choose between different manners of bearing arms for self-defense, the right must be accommodated," she wrote.

The battle over gun rights pits the National Rifle Association and other firearms proponents against gun-control groups such as the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, created in the aftermath of the 1981 assassinationattempt on President Ronald Reagan that severely wounded his press secretary, Jim Brady.

The appeals court ruling does not affect states within its jurisdiction that have more liberal gun-totinglaws; it merely allows more liberal states, such as California, to impose tougher restrictions.

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2u8sdZ3

See original here:
Supreme Court won't rule on carrying guns in public - USA TODAY

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to take a case which argued that 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.

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

The refusal to hear the case upholds a ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which held last year that the "Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public."

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the court's action "reflects a distressing trend" in the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch also dissented.

Shares of major gun firms including American Outdoor Brands ( AOBC) andSturm Ruger & Company ( RGR) were falling over 1% during mid-morning trading on Monday.

What's Hot On TheStreet

Unusual to hear these words: Under Armour's (UAA) founder Kevin Plank has never been one to sound weak in a public setting. Plank is known for his motivational speeches to employees and desire to crush all competition. So, it was odd to hear Plank say rival Nike (NKE) "isn't playing fair" on the Today Show on Sunday -- it sounded like a CEO who after several below plan quarters is finally realizing how challenging it will be to dethrone Nike.

Original post:
Supreme Court Refuses Case Challenging Second Amendment Rights - TheStreet.com

Taking action to protect Second Amendment rights from unwarranted executive intrusion, Alabama Senator Luther Strangeon Wednesday introduced the Protecting the Second Amendment Act.

The bill would amend the Gun Control Act to nullify generalized, routine, or ongoing reporting requirement on lawful gun owners based on geographic location or sales records of multiple long guns, and prohibit future executive action against them.

The Obama administration demonstrated time and again a disturbing willingness to bypass the separation of powers and disregard Congress as a Constitutional watchdog, explainedStrange. Had the restrictions faced by lawful gun dealers in border states been applied to Alabama, many sportsmen, myself included, would have a difficult time practicing our hobby, and exercising our Constitutional rights. With this bill, I am proud to stand up against existing and future threats to the rights of lawful gun owners, and restore respect for the rule of law.

Under an Obama-era executive order claiming to target the flow of firearms to Mexican drug cartels, gun owners and dealers in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas were subjected to additional reporting requirements on firearms above .22 caliber.

The Protecting the Second Amendment Act has already received support from originalSenate cosponsors, Texas-RepublicansJohn Cornynand Ted Cruz, and is being praised by the National Rifle Association as an important step in rolling back the full extent of Obama administrationsactions against guns.

On behalf of the NRAs five million members, we would like to thank Senator Strange for introducing this important bill that would roll back the Obama administrations defacto gun registration scheme, said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox. Senator Strange continues to be a champion for our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in the U.S. Senate.

For eight long years the Second Amendment was constantly under threat by an Administration hostile to the fundamental right of Americans to defend themselves, addedCornyn. This bill will help roll back unilateral regulations from the last Administration targeting law-abiding gun owners, and Im proud to join Senator Strange in this fight.

View post:
Luther Strange introduces bill to close Obama-era 2nd Amendment loophole - Alabama Today

Yet despite things seemingly going our way, I cant help but keep asking myself one question: Now what?

What should we freedom lovers who believe so strongly in defending our Second Amendment rights do next? Should we rest on our laurels? Or should we continue to fight, while we have the numbers, to not only maintain the status quo but gain back some of the valuable ground weve lost over the years? I strongly believe its the latter, and that maintaining and gaining ground requires a three-pronged approach: (1) keep giving, (2) keep communicating and voting, and (3) keep recruiting.

Keep Giving

Its human nature to figure that, since things seem to be going our way, we dont need to give quite as much money, time, and effort to support the organizations on the front lines of the battle for our Second Amendment rights. In reality, people get comfortable and dont feel their way of life is at risk, so they scale back their contributions. For those that are aware of this, and are willing, we need to dig deeper, and give more to compensate the natural decline.

Im guilty of feeling this way myself. But I know that now, more than ever, organizations like the NRA, the NSSF, and ASA need our support, especially financially. If donations go down, those who seek to curtail our gun rights only gain strength and momentum. So I encourage you all to continue supporting the organizations that do much of the heavy lifting in support of the Second Amendment.

Keep Communicating and Voting

We need to stay vigilant in communicating not only with each other but also with our legislators. Second Amendment supporters now have the pulpit, but if we stop conveying our desires to those who make and enforce our nations laws, we could lose ground even though we hold most of the cards. I implore all of you to stay on top of your legislators and let your voice be heard. Believe me when I tell you the other side will do all they can to make sure their voices, and wishes, dont fall on deaf ears.

We have two bills that should get voted on this year that take back some of the freedoms we have lost over the years: The Hearing Protection Act and the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017. I encourage you to vote for Representatives that support these two bills and to vote against those who do not.

Keep Recruiting

I dont know if recruiting is the best word, but I do know this: Were going to ultimately lose the battle if we dont introduce more people to shootingespecially the younger generation. At age 54, I still vividly recall the day and the experience as a youth, when I took a hunter safety course and got a chance to shoot skeet for the first time. This is an opportunity for you to take someone you know shooting. It will be an experience they will always remember.

Formative experiences like this go a long way toward encouraging younger people to learn about and develop an affinity toward firearms and Second Amendment rights. And its precisely these young people well need to carry on the fight. Along with introducing younger people to shooting, supporting organizations such as the Friends of the NRA, which raises funds for the future of shooting sports, is very important.

Lets not forget the importance of introducing women to shooting. Its definitely something women can, and should, enjoy as well. This is evidenced by my wife, Cindy. She recently told me, I think its important, when introducing a new female shooter into the sport, that they are comfortable with the environment and the trainer, as well as the equipment. Its all part of the experience. Having equipment that best fits the new shooter, a respected and inviting range, and the right people, will make for a better experience.

I would encourage every shooter, male or female; to take a lady shooting and expose them to the activity/sport you enjoy so much yourselves. Maybe even teach them on a suppressed weapon, so they dont react to the bang and the recoil, which the suppressor helps mitigate. We need their support, and getting themas well as our youthaboard ensures the Second Amendment will remain strong. This will also create opportunities the whole family can enjoy.

So remember, the stakes are simply too high to let up. Even though the pendulum seems to be swinging our way at the moment, we need to play to win. Had the Falcons been playing to win-instead of playing not to lose in the second half of the Super Bowl they would be champions today! We have not won this battle. It is only half-time and we must play to win. We have to continue to give and give big; we have to communicate with our legislators and vote for our issues; we must make every effort to recruit and bring new people to the shooting sports. Lets play to win!

Marty Daniel is the president, CEO, and founder of Daniel Defense and a guest columnist for Bullet Points with AWR Hawkins.

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

Follow this link:
Marty Daniel We Have a Pro-Second Amendment President: Now What? - Breitbart News

Over the years, Ive developed an insufferable tic that I insist on fobbing off as a bad joke. Upon encountering someone going through seriously bad timescancer diagnosis, dead dog, divorce, child gone crazyI invariably blurt out, Well other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play? In all these years, this has yet to inject a lick of levity. The punchline does not derive from the hilariously improbable notion that Mary Todd Lincolnafflicted with migraines, debilitating depression, racking physical pains, and what was likely a bipolar conditionmight actually have enjoyed anything. The play in question was Our American Cousin, which Mary Todd and her husband, Abraham Lincoln, were watching at Fords Theatre in Washington, D.C., when actor John Wilkes Booth shot and killed the president. Booth waited for the line that always got the loudest laughswhen a lovably loutish American proto-bro type calls a sniffy British dowager a sockdologizing old man-trapbefore aiming at Lincolns head and pulling the trigger. Bootha supporter of the Southern causedid notmiss.

Had Booth had at his disposal a sound suppressor for his pistol at the time, he would not have had to wait for the laughter. And Lincolns widow would not have had to ponder what a sockdologizing old man-trap was. More misogyny hiding behind humor, perhaps? If Booth had a silencer, he no doubt could have escaped. More than 150 years after the fact, another son of the SouthRepublican Congressmember Jeff Duncan from South Carolinahas introduced a bill that would have vastly improved Booths odds. Duncan is the proud author of the Hearing Protection Act, which would expedite and accelerate the sale of gun suppressorsalso known as silencersby exempting them from the additional layer of time-consuming background checks required by the National Firearms Act passed in 1934. According to Duncan, silencers are needed because shooting is notoriously hard on the hearing of those who shoot a lot. He also cites a study showing the number of violent crimes committed by people wielding silenced firearms can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Im sure theyre right about that. Theyre also right when they point outas they like to dothat more Americans are killed with hammers than by rifles. Its also beside thepoint.

Two weeks ago in Judge Brian Hills courtroom, I saw the real point during the triple-homicide trial of a man accused of killing noted Chinese herbalist Dr. Henry Han; his wife, Jennie Yu; and their 5-year-old child, Emily. Eight muffled bullets had been shot into the head of Emily and three each into the heads of her parents. Gruesome forensic photosshowing all 14 bullet entry woundswere splashed bigger than life up on the courtroom wall. This was one of those rare instances in which a silencer had, in fact, been used. The point was to help the killer get away withmurder.

Heres my point: Wearing earplugs and earmuffs significantly reduces hearing damage inflicted by shooting. It does not, however, help killers get away withmurder.

As usual, theres no shortage of grim ironies surrounding this legislation, which was supposed to have had its first committee hearing this past week. From the outset, the timing was awkward, coming on the first-year anniversary of the one-way shootout at the Orlando gay nightclub Pulse, which left 49 dead and 58 seriously wounded. The hearing was only postponed after a rage-addled Bernie Sanders supporter, James T. Hodgkinson, lit up a baseball field in Arlington, Virginia, last weekshooting rapid fire at members of the Republican congressional baseball team practicing for the big game the following night against their Democratic rivals. Just before the 66-year-old Hodgkinson began his rampage, he met none other than South Carolina Congressmember Duncan, author of the Hearing Protection Act, walking off the field. As Duncan and the shooter passed each other, Hodgkinson asked him, Excuse me, sir, whos practicing today? Democrats or Republicans? As Duncan recounted, I said, This is a Republican team, and he said, K, thanks. By the time Hodgkinson was done spraying the field, five people had been seriously wounded, including House Majority Whip SteveScalise.

The shooting has not shaken Duncans belief in the silencer bill. The gunman, Duncan observed blandly, did not use a silencer. Duncan added that Illinois, where Hodkinson is from, has some of the toughest gun control laws in the nation, yet even they failed to stop the allegedshooter.

Should the Hearing Protection Act be approved, it would repeal the outright silencer bans independently enacted by 11 states, most notably California and New York. So much for Southern conservatives passionate belief in states rights. It turns out there are roughly 1.3 million legally registered silencer owners in the United States. Should Duncans bill pass, all records of who own silencers will bedestroyed.

The Hearing Protection Act is part of a broader legislative package known euphoniously as the SHARE Actwhich stands for Sportsmens Heritage and Recreational Enhancement. Duncan is also the author of that. Included in SHARE are provisions to revoke bans on the sale of armor-piercing bullets. SHARE abolishes existing bans on the importation of elephant and polar bear body parts as big-game hunting trophies. It also contains unprecedented new protections for transporting guns and ammo across state lines. Should any law enforcement officer seek to enforce local prohibitions against certain guns or ammo being shipped through their jurisdiction, the officer could be personally sued for so doing. Thats radicalstuff.

The good news? No new date has yet been set for a hearing on the silencerbill.

So other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

The rest is here:
Triple Homicide Collides with Second Amendment - Santa Barbara Independent

Please enable Javascript to watch this video

CARMEL, Ind. - Organizations calling for stricter gun laws and Second Amendment supporters united Wednesday for National Ask Day.

The day is put on by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Brady Organization and encourages parents to ask the caretakers of their children's friends if guns are stored safely in the home.

It may sound intrusive, but I think its totally appropriate to say, are there guns in the home? Are those guns locked up? Are they secure?'" gun advocate and founder of The Law Office of Guy A. Relford, Guy Relford, said. "And thats not an anti-gun message.Im the most ardent second amendment supporter there is, but I wouldnt hesitate to ask those questions. Just because I store my guns responsibly that doesnt mean everyone does, and if anyone is offended by that I dont think they are taking the safety of the child as their first priority.

Relford has taught gun safety for more than 20 years to children and adults. He said gun safety is a sometimes a difficult conversation for parents to have with their children, but it shouldn't be.

"I dont put gun safety in any different category than any other kind of safety whether youre talking about swimming pool safety or traffic safety," Relford said. "Your kids won't be under your belt all the time so those kids need to know how to react if they come across a gun."

The Pew Research Center said about a third of homes in America that have kids in them also have gun and a study recently published in the journal, "Pediatrics," found 1,300 children die from a gun-related injury each year.

Originally posted here:
National Ask Day unites Second Amendment supporters and groups calling for stricter gun laws - WTTV CBS4Indy

By Jacob Sullum Creators Syndicate

Philando Castile did what you are supposed to do if you have a concealed-carry permit and get pulled over by police: He let the officer know he had a gun.

Had Castile been less forthcoming, he would still be alive.

Last Friday, a Minnesota jury acquitted the cop who killed Castile of second-degree manslaughter, demonstrating once again how hard it is to hold police accountable when they use unnecessary force. The verdict also sends a chilling message to gun owners, since Castile is dead because he exercised his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Jeronimo Yanez, an officer employed by the St. Anthony, Minnesota, police department, stopped Castile around 9 p.m. on July 6 in Falcon Heights, a suburb of Minneapolis and St. Paul. The official reason was a nonfunctioning brake light.

The actual reason, according to Yanez, was that Castile resembled a suspect in a convenience store robbery that had happened four days before in the same neighborhood. The full extent of the resemblance was that Castile, like the suspect, was black, wore glasses and dreadlocks, and had a "wide-set nose."

Castile, a 32-year-old cafeteria manager, had nothing to do with the robbery. But in Yanez's mind, Castile posed a threat.

The traffic stop began politely but turned deadly within a minute. Audio and video of the encounter show that Yanez asked for Castile's proof of insurance and driver's license.

After Castile handed over his insurance card, he calmly informed Yanez, "Sir, I have to tell you that I do have a firearm on me." Yanez interrupted him, saying, "OK, don't reach for it, then."

Castile and his girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, who was sitting in the front passenger seat, repeatedly assured the officer that Castile was not reaching for the weapon. But by now Yanez was in full panic mode.

"Don't pull it out!" he screamed, immediately drawing his weapon and firing seven rounds into the car, heedless of Reynolds and her 4-year-old daughter, who was in the backseat. Mortally wounded, Castile moaned and said, "I wasn't reaching for it."

Reynolds, who drew nationwide attention to the shooting by reporting it via Facebook Live immediately afterward, has consistently said Castile was reaching for his wallet to retrieve his driver's license, per Yanez's instructions. Yanez initially said he thought Castile was reaching for his gun; later he claimed to have seen Castile pulling out the pistol, which was found inside a front pocket on the right side of the dead man's shorts.

Yanez clearly acted out of fear. The question is whether that fear was reasonable in the circumstances and whether deadly force was the only way to address it.

Jeffrey Noble, an expert on police procedure, testified that Yanez's actions were "objectively unreasonable." The officer had "absolutely no reason" to view Castile as a robbery suspect, Noble said, and could have mitigated the threat he perceived by telling Castile to put his hands on the dashboard or stepping back from the car window.

If Castile planned to shoot Yanez, why would he announce that he had a firearm? That disclosure was obviously aimed at avoiding trouble but had the opposite effect because Yanez was not thinking clearly.

Officers like Yanez, who is leaving his department under a "voluntary separation agreement," pose a clear and present danger to law-abiding gun owners. Yet the National Rifle Association has been curiously reticent about the case.

The day after the shooting, the NRA said "the reports from Minnesota are troubling and must be thoroughly investigated." It promised "the NRA will have more to say once all the facts are known."

The reports have been investigated, and the facts are known. Yet the NRA has not added anything to the bland, noncommittal statement it made a year ago. You'd think "the nation's largest and oldest civil rights organization" would have more to say about an innocent man who was killed for exercising his Second Amendment rights.

Jacob Sullum (jsullum@reason.com) is a senior editor at Reason magazine. He writes for Creators Syndicate.

See the original post:
Sullum: The NRA shuns a Second Amendment martyr - The Ledger

Photo: Cathy Zuraw / Hearst Connecticut Media

Second amendment group opposes lawsuit in Sandy Hook shooting

The Connecticut Citizens Defense League has filed a brief opposing a lawsuit that would hold manufacturers and sellers of the gun used in the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting liable for the crime.

The suit filed by the families of 10 victims argues that makers and distributors of the AR-15-style rifle used in the shooting recklessly marketed it to civilians, ignoring the risks that it would be misused. The suit was thrown out by a lower court, and the families have appealed to have it reinstated.

CCDLs brief against the reinstatement argues that the firearm is 25 percent as powerful as a regular hunting rifle, because it uses lightweight ammunition. It also states that crime statistics show that ordinary handguns are more than 15 times more likely to be used by mass shooters than the model of firearm chosen by Adam Lanza.

If the defendants are held liable in this case, then, it will set a precedent that would expose businesses to legal liability each time they sell virtually any type of firearm in Connecticut, the CCDL news release states.

Here is the original post:
Second amendment group opposes lawsuit in Sandy Hook shooting - Danbury News Times