Category Archives: Second Amendment

"Shall Not Be Infringed"

Weapons change, but the man who uses them changes not at all.Gen. George S. Patton

It seems that a segment of the shooting population pines for the old times, and actually believes things were better way back when. Guns were in .30 cal and .45 ACP, the uniforms were pressed to a razors edge, and Mitsubishi was a thing only known for being shot out of the sky. Back when the ships were made of wood, and the men were made of iron. But the truth is, weapons evolve. And you either get with that evolution, or you go extinct. To borrow a quote from my favorite humor website Cracked.com, showing up to fight iron age enemies with bronze age weapons, you might as well have been carrying a breadstick. GUNS AMERICA

The prevailing thought on the gun control political left is that times have changed but technology has no reason to. That is, while a man had the right to defend himself using a single shot musket in 1791 against an attacker using a single shot musket, a man in 2017 using a five shot revolver has no right to defend himself against a perp with a 30 shot semiauto AR. Or a variant: the home owner with a 30-round AR has no right to use his repeating firearm against four attackers using a 10 shot semiauto pistol, a crowbar, a butcher knife, or a runaway truck. For the left, self-defense is unfair to begin with, and for all self-defense cases the left has a pat answer: The Founders Never Gave Americans the Right.

Justice Scalia did.

For the left. equality is everything. Self-defense by its nature discriminates against the attacker who may not be as well-armed. What they would prefer is for the perp to have the 30 shot AR, and for the home defender to have a replica single shot musket, or better yet, an Obamaphone with which they can call 911.

As you can see in the linked video, the victim has plenty of time to make the call. And wait for the police to show up. And too, that a single shot firearm would have sufficed.

As in all things, the left takes a logical point illogically to its logical conclusion: meaning that in the 18th century when the Bill of rights were composed, man used mostly muzzle-loading single shot muskets. When the founding Fathers wrote the constitution, the gun controller will posit, they never had in mind repeating firearms for use by civilians

David Deming - - Wednesday, April 12, 2017 Washington Times

For decades the federal judiciary has been trying to interpret the Second Amendment out of the Constitution. It is, as Sanford Levinson has termed it, an embarrassment to an elite class of legal scholars that finds firearms to be unusual and repulsive objects. Now the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has declared that the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle is not covered by the Second Amendment, despite that fact that is the most common rifle sold in the United States. This execrable decision is the latest outrage in a long series of disingenuous judicial contortions.

The courts have never come to terms with the fact that any intelligible reading of the Second Amendment requires an interpretation that acknowledges and reconciles its two clauses. The operative clause speaks of the right of the people, while the prefatory clause justifies the operative clause by professing that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

Prior to the Heller decision by the Supreme Court (2008), for 60 years or more the federal judiciary almost unanimously ruled that the Second Amendment did not guarantee an individual right. The militia mentioned in the prefatory clause was taken to be the National Guard. Thus, the right described in the operative clause was interpreted to be the right of states to maintain militia. This interpretation was never credible because it excised the Second Amendment from its contextual and historical underpinnings.

The Obama-appointed left-liberal circuit courts, their predecessors and leftist media had the nation convinced that the 2nd Amendment ratified in 1791 actually meant the National Guard established in 1903. You see, not only are the political left Time Travelers, being delusional with uncontrollable tyrannical tendencies to rewrite law, they also live in the fourth dimension where $8000 deductibles actually mean AFFORDABLE Health Care.

The factual argument is that all firearms were designed for the military or police at first and came into general use later (and here I except fully-automatic small arms and artillery for what should be obvious reasons). Everyone belonged to the militia - as all able-bodied Americans legally do today unless they are prohibited from membership by law.

The militia is defined as all able-bodied non-trans-gendered Americans who used to be able to pick up a 12 lb. musket in 1791, but have trouble picking up a 6 lb. AR today that can fire 30 times as many rounds as the musket. Military and civilian small arms have operated in the same fashion (select auto fire is the exception, and have not been available to the general public since the 1930s.)

David Derning:

What weapons are excluded? Those not in the common use by an individual citizen, such as poison gas or large artillery pieces. The phrase used in Heller, dangerous and unusual, is properly understood to refer to weapons of mass destruction.

For the record, there are over a half million fully automatic firearms in the hands of specially-licensed American citizens and collectors and they are never used in the commission of crimes.

THE REPEATING FIREARM EXISTED IN PRE-REVOLUTIONARY AMERICA

David Koppel of the Volokh Conspiracy, Washington TImes:

The first repeaters to be built in large quantities appear to be the 1646 Danish flintlocks that used a pair of tubular magazines, and could fire 30 shots without reloading. Like a modern lever-action rifle, the next shot was made ready by a simple two-step motion of the trigger guard. These guns were produced for the Danish and Dutch armies. Brown, at 106-7.

30 rounds, just like the modern AR-15 - exactly the kind of firearm the Founders had on mind when they referred to Shall Not Be Infringed.

David Kopell continues:

Gun-control advocates often argue that gun-control laws must be more restrictive than the original meaning of the Second Amendment would allow, because modern firearms are so different from the firearms of the late 18th century. This argument is based on ignorance of the history of firearms. It is true that in 1791 the most common firearms were handguns or long guns that had to be reloaded after every shot. But it is not true that repeating arms, which can fire multiple times without reloading, were unimagined in 1791. To the contrary, repeating arms long predate the 1606 founding of the first English colony in America.

Firearms technology and the original meaning of the Second Amendment

One of the men to credit for why repeating arms became much less expensive during the 19th century is James Madison, author of the Second Amendment

To function reliably, repeating firearms must have internal components that fit together very preciselymuch more precisely than is necessary for single-shot firearms. Before President Madison and Secretary Monroe started the manufacturing revolution, firearms were built one at a time by craftsmen.

THE REPEATING FIREARM IS EXACTLY WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHER HAD IN MIND

Koppel: What kind of repeating arms were available before 1815, when the Madison-Monroe mass production innovation program began? The state of the art was the Girandoni air rifle, invented around 1779 for Austrian army sharpshooters. Lewis and Clark would carry a Girandoni on their famous expedition, during the Jefferson administration. The Girandoni could shoot 21 or 22 bullets in .46 or .49 caliber without reloading. Ballistically equal to a firearm, a single shot from the Girandoni could penetrate a one-inch wood plank, or take an elk. (For more on the Girandoni, see my article The History of Firearms Magazines and Magazine Prohibitions, 88 Albany L. Rev. 849, 852-53 (2015).)

Liberals who neither know history, civics, understand law, or how to count, may be surprised to find that 1779, just like the existence of repeating firearms, came before 1791 when the Second Amendment was ratified. Conservatives dont find any of it surprising.

The first repeaters had been invented about three centuries before. The earliest-known model is a German breech-loading matchlock arquebus from around 1490-1530 with a 10-shot revolving cylinder. M.L. Brown, Firearms in Colonial America: The Impact on History and Technology, 1492-1792, 50 (1980). Henry VIII had a long gun that used a revolving cylinder (a revolver) for multiple shots. W.W. Greener, The Gun and Its Development, 81-82 (9th ed. 1910). A 16-round wheel lock dates from about 1580. Kopel, at 852.

Production of repeaters continued in the seventeenth century.

The only factor for repeating firearms not being common in the Revolutionary War was cost. They were prohibitively expensive to manufacture with any precision - and it was specifically precision that was required to manufacture firearms capable of self-reloading.

THE AR-15 - THE BARBIE DOLL FOR GUYS

Designed a half-century ago, the AR-15 was the later of many self-loading repeating firearms that came before and now are in common use for over a century. It is common and for that reason is validated by the Heller decision to be legal for all. It is popular because it is a universal, it is light and maneuverable, it is user friendly and fast, and it is a capable firearm free people demand for its varied purposes.

Andrew G, BenjaminAll Rights Reserved

David Kopel is Research Director, Independence Institute, Denver; Associate Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, D.C; and Adjunct professor, Denver University, Sturm College of Law. He is author of 17 books and 100 scholarly journal articles

Andrew G. Benjamin is a real estate and tax specialist, equities trader, a former economic advisor to New York city mayor Rudy Giuliani; serving on the transition teams Subcommittee on Taxation, Finance and the Budget. Benjamin also wrote extensively about intelligence, economic issues, the Mideast, terrorism, technology, high end audio and transnational politics.

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban. -- Follow these instructions on registering:

Follow this link:
SECOND AMENDMENT PRIMER Part II - Canada Free Press

We are over 100 days into the Trump administration, and there have been record numbers of gun sales as citizens are empowered by new leadership to embrace their Second Amendment rights. In April alone, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the system gun retailers use to verify if a potential buyer can legally buy a gun, ran a whopping 2,045,564 background checks, showing there is renewed support for a strong Second Amendment after 8 years of anti-gun policies. And at the U.S. Concealed Carry Association (USCCA) our membership numbers continue to rise because the right to self-defense is one of our most fundamental beliefs as Americans.

In December 2015, a Gallup poll showed that 16% of Americans put terrorism as the number one issue facing our country. Sure enough, homeland security was also one of the biggest issues at the forefront of the 2016 election. Americans are worried about protecting themselves and their families, and have decided to take full advantage of their Second Amendment rights.

Under the past administration, President Obamas solution to violence and terrorism in this country was to legislate policies to keep people from legally obtaining guns. Now, under an administration thats pro-Second Amendment, gun owners can finally stop feeling criminalized for wanting to defend themselves.

An NBC/Washington Post poll also from December 2015 shows more people believe that the best way to stop terrorism is to allow citizens to arm themselves, instead of stricter gun control laws. A majority of people surveyed were also against an assault weapons ban, showing that the liberal claims of the majority of the country is against assault weapons, are false. In the same poll, only 22% of respondents were confident in the governments ability to prevent a terrorist attack an unsettlingly low number. All of these numbers from a year and a half ago, when our country was so close to an election, all explain the recent uptick in gun sales.

Americans watch the news, and are aware of what is going on around the world. We see it almost daily. Terrorist attacks in Europe, in places that seemed perfectly safe until recently, and even acts of domestic terrorism here in the United States have citizens concerned about their safety. Not to mention the instances of everyday crimes, which interestingly enough, is usually higher in places that have stricter gun laws. Legal access to firearms make citizens and their communities safer, and a country of armed, responsible citizens is a deterrent to criminals everywhere.

Lone-wolf terrorist attacks are on the rise, and the police cant always get there fast enough to stop the attacker before they hurt or kill people. Many attackers are known to the FBI and law enforcement, but there is little the government can do to intervene if the attacker keeps a low enough profile. It is up to responsibly armed citizens to be the first line of defense when these situations arise. Whether they are protecting just themselves, their family, or a classroom full of schoolchildren, people can see a clear need to arm themselves and know how to respond in a life threatening situation.

Back when the framers of the Constitution spelled out our freedoms in writing, the gun lobby did not exist. They were under no pressure from any interest groups regarding guns, and with pure intentions, wrote that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. With a leader in the White House that embraces and respects the Second Amendment, the tide is quickly turning toward a society that embraces responsible gun ownership, and does not condemn people for want to protect themselves.

Tim Schmidt is the president and founder of the U.S. Concealed Carry Association, and may be contacted at [emailprotected].

More here:
More Americans Are Embracing Their Second Amendment Rights - The Daily Caller

Gun rights can be a touchy topic, especially considering Virginia Techs past. I would like to start off by saying that when I advocate for gun rights and against gun-free zones, I do not seek to neglect the horrific mass shootings that have taken place on college campuses and around the United States.

The people of the United States have the right to own a firearm under the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which states: 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. Many politicians, specifically politicians on the left, seem to believe that this amendment needs to be updated or interpreted differently. As former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once said, The Constitution is not a living organism, it's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say."

As citizens, we know how inefficient and unorganized our government can be, so why should we trust our politicians when they say that we will be safe, if not safer, without our own personal protection? Personally, I would rather be in control of my safety, especially if it comes down to a life or death situation.

One of the ways the left is trying to take away gun rights is by passing an assault rifle ban. Not too long ago, I did not see a problem with banning assault rifles, as I assumed it meant militaristic rifles that the everyday American has no logical use for. However, I later found out the term assault rifle can mean whatever a politician wants it to mean. Politicians, primarily on the left, are misleading the American people by using terms that have no concrete meaning.

Another way the left has tried to take away gun rights is by implementing gun-free zones. A gun-free zone is exactly what is sounds like; its a place where citizens are not legally allowed to carry guns. In a fairytale, perhaps this would be a great idea. No one carries a gun, no shootings and no robberies, right? Wrong. The people who commit gun violence are not law-abiding citizens. If you havent noticed, murder and assault are already illegal. The law does not act as a deterrent for any of the people who have committed or wish to commit such acts.

The only people who truly abide by gun-free zones are the people who respect the law and have no intent of using their gun to harm an innocent person. These zones unarm the good guys and have no impact on the bad guys, essentially making citizens in a gun-free zone sitting ducks. Many gun-free zones are advertised as such. By advertising that a place is a gun-free zone, one is in turn announcing that those inside are defenseless, and therefore an easy target. Edmund Burke once said, The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Politicians on the left are making it so that good men have no option but to do nothing.

The gun does not pull the trigger, just like a spoon doesnt make someone overweight. People make themselves overweight and people choose to pull the trigger.

Now that I have established that theres little logic behind creating extremely rigid gun laws, lets look at the lefts record of accomplishment, or in this case, the lack of such. Illinois is one of the top ten states with the strictest gun laws. Chicago, one of Illinois major cities, had 762 gun-related deaths in 2016 alone. This is the highest number of gun-related deaths the city has seen in 19 years. Detroit, the city with the second highest murder rate in the country, also has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. In 2016, Detroit had 302 homicides.

These two cities not only have some of the harshest gun laws in the nation, but they also have some of the highest murder rates in the United States. A list of a few countries and regimes that were or still are gun-free zones include Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and now the struggling socialist country of Venezuela. These draconian gun laws are ineffective and illogical as shown by their inability to keep those residing inside safe and secure.

Our government should be promoting gun ownership rather than placing powerless laws on them. A great example of more armed citizens decreasing crime is Switzerland. In Switzerland, every man who is a citizen serves in the Swiss national military and is obligated to keep their rifle and ammunition in his home. As of 2010, Switzerland only had 0.5 gun-related deaths for every 100,000 citizens. As a conservative, I am not supportive of the government mandating that every U.S. male in the military own a personal gun, however, I do think politicians and citizens on the left need to realize that by un-arming themselves and other citizens, they are in fact creating more victims to gun-related deaths.

Another flaw in the gun control debate is that leftists fail to recognize the personal responsibility of the shooter. The gun does not pull the trigger, just like a spoon doesnt make someone overweight. People make themselves overweight and people choose to pull the trigger. The shooter makes a cognitive decision to pull the trigger and harm another person. If a student misspells a word on a spelling test should the teacher ban pencils? Of course not, so why should our government ban guns when someone misuses one? They shouldnt; a gun, like a pencil, is a tool. Theres no logic nor facts supporting that banning guns will work or has worked. As Ronald Reagan once said, We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker.

Read more here:
Gun regulation: A shotty violation of Second Amendment rights - Virginia Tech Collegiate Times

Maryland Daily Record (subscription)

Shots fired during Gunpowder Falls hike raise Second Amendment questions Maryland Daily Record (subscription) Hugh Pocock was hiking in Gunpowder Falls State Park on Memorial Day with his two sons when they heard gunshots. It was loud, but the trio assumed it was someone doing target practice and were not too concerned. But as Pocock and his sons began ...

More:
Shots fired during Gunpowder Falls hike raise Second Amendment questions - Maryland Daily Record (subscription)

Gun rally promoted changes to Pennsylvanias concealed carry laws of gun ownership.

Hundreds of gun owners and gun right advocates were joined by a large bipartisan group of lawmakers in the state Capitol rotunda just one week ago to voice their support for the second amendment rights of Pennsylvania citizens. This was the twelfth annual second amendment rights rally to be held in Harrisburg. A number of nationally noted speakers shared their perspectives on legislative and judicial efforts to protect and preserve the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

House Speaker Mike Turzai (R-Allegheny) addressed those attending the rally and voiced support for moving municipal preemption legislation that will prevent local governments from regulating the ownership, possession or transportation of firearms and ammunition, on to become law in Pennsylvania.

The founders knew what they were doing when they made sure they were protecting our rights to bear arms, Turzai told those in attendance last Monday. This team in the Capitol, Republicans and Democrats who recognize the right to bear arms, we have held off all of those attacks of those who want to take away those rights. Secondly, the team who make sure we protect second amendment rights on a local level is also here. We find that municipalities keep trying to take away those rights which is why we sent the pre-emption bill to the Senate. Were going to get it back on the Governors desk.

Representative Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler) also spoke to reporters at the rally and told them he was pleased with the turnout.

We had a lot of law-abiding citizens that traveled to the Capitol to stand up for their right to keep and bear arms, to protect themselves, their families, their properties, their neighbors, (and) to protect our state and nation, Metcalfe said. This is an important event every year to bring citizen activists into the Capitol to lobby through the halls, to talk to their legislators, to make sure they are holding their legislator accountable to defending the Constitution.

Representative Rick Saccone (R-Allegheny & Washington) was a prime sponsor of a bill that would amend the current conceal gun-carry law.

You know we are an open-carry state. We dont need the governments permission to carry around openly. I carry everywhere. I carry in the banks. I carry in the grocery store. I carry everywhere I go. But we need the governments permission to put my coat over my weapon. That doesnt make any sense. I think its a fair bill. When you are walking through these hallowed halls today, make sure you tug every legislators sleeve and tell them we want Constitutional Carry. Its sweeping the nation! Every other state is passing it. Why cant we pass it here?

Saccone introduced the bill in January, but it has yet to come to the floor for a vote.

If adopted, Pennsylvania would join Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming, and Vermont that have adopted constitutional-carry rules.

There was no confirmation that either local representatives Jeff Pyle (R-Armstrong/Indiana/Butler) or Representative Donna Oberlander (R-Clarion/Armstrong/Forrest) participated in the rally.

Continue reading here:
Gun Owners Attend Second Amendment Rights Rally - The Kittanning Paper

CBS Pittsburgh / KDKA

PA Representative Holds 'Make The Second Amendment Great Again' Rally CBS Pittsburgh / KDKA A Make the Second Amendment Great Again rally, sponsored by Butler County republican Daryl Metcalfe was held in the Rotunda on Monday and brought together state lawmakers, sheriffs and gun rights enthusiasts for what has become an annual event.

Link:
PA Representative Holds 'Make The Second Amendment Great Again' Rally - CBS Pittsburgh / KDKA

Current city ordinances in Tacoma establish penalties for stun guns or Tasers that include up to a year in jail and/or a $5,000 fine. (Photo: City of Tacoma)

A legal team retained by gun rights advocates are warning aWashington city that its prohibition on stun guns and Tasers could land them in federal court.

The Firearms Policy Coalition is holding Tacoma to task over its local ordinances against the sale, manufacturing, purchasing, possessing or carrying of any electroshock device by a law-abiding resident, visitor or traveler.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms not only the right to keep and bear firearms, said FPC attorney Stephen Stamboulieh in an April 3 letter to the Tacoma city attorney, citing the 2008 Heller decision as well as a 2016 Supreme Court case directly concerning stun guns.

Under current Tacoma codes, with exceptions for devices used by law enforcement, possession of an electronic weapon in the city can result in a $5,000 fine, or one year in jail, or both.

In response to the groups request that Tacoma remedy its potentially unconstitutional local ordinance within 30 days or prepare for a lawsuit, Acting City Attorney William Fosbre said his staff is reviewing the law and will brief the city council, police department and other relevant policy makers on the current enforceability of the current ban on the devices.

Noting that other cities across the nation have scrapped their bans on electronic weapons in recent months following costly legal challenges, Phillip Watson, a civil rights advocate with the FPC, warned in a follow-up letter sent this week to Mayor Marilyn Strickland that Tacoma taxpayers and residents would be well-served by an expeditious repeal of the outdated and ill-advised subject ban.

FPC President Brandon Combs told Guns.com the city manager and attorney are preparing an ordinance to change the law, and that it would probably be ready for their June 6 council meeting.

More here:
Second Amendment group prods Tacoma to repeal Taser ban - Guns.com

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

However, everything stalled as both the House and Senate appear to have largely embraced a return to status quo on gun rights.

What follows are five pro-gun moves that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) could be making right now, but are not.

National ReciprocityNational Reciprocity legislation was introduced by Rep. Richard Hudson on January 3, 2017the first day of Congress. Breitbart News reported that Hudsons billnot only establishes national reciprocity for concealed permit holders but also national reciprocity for residents who live in states that require no permit for concealed carry. In other words, it is national right to carry for law-abiding citizens, period. Hudsons bill has since been complimented by national reciprocity legislation introduced by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), yet neither the House nor the Senate have taken the bills up. President Trump has already made clear that he supports national reciprocity, but he cannot unilaterally enact it. It will have to come to him via the legislative branch.

Hearing Protection ActThe Hearing Protection Act is firearm deregulation legislation which emphasizes the health benefits of suppressors. The Act has medical doctors on its side, while Gabby Giffords and other gun controllers push ear plugs and ear muffs as sufficient hearing protection.Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership (DRGO) explain:

Hearing protection in the form of ear plugs or ear muffs, alone or in combination, can only reduce noise exposure by approximately 20-30 decibels. This limitation in noise reduction may still expose a firearms user to damaging levels of noise; 120 decibels is still louder than a car horn from three feet away. Thus, inside the canal and over the ear devices (i.e., ear plugs and ear muffs)the only current generally available protectionare inadequate for impulse noise protection, and when used together they deafen the wearer to all external sound.

At the same time, DRGO stresses that suppressors offered significantly greater noise reduction than ear-level protection, usually greater than 50% better. The Hearing Protection Act removes the cumbersome process which law-abiding citizens currently have to go through to acquire a suppressor, thus making the hearing benefits of the devices readily accessible.

The Hearing Protection Act was introduced byRepresentatives Jeff Duncan (R-SC-3) and John Carter (R-TX-31) on January 9, yet it sits. Donald Trump Jr. has made clear that his fatherour Presidentwould sign suppressor deregulation should it reach his desk.

Repeal of Gun Ban for Military VeteransThe gun ban for military veterans is structured almost identically to the Social Security gun ban which the House and Senate both voted to repeal in February, and which President Trump signed on February 28. The gun ban for military veterans opens the door forveterans receiving disability benefits to be investigated if their benefit check is sent to a third party to help manage finances. The premise behind launching an investigation is the presupposition that those who require help managing finances may be mentally unfit for gun ownership.

On March 16, 2017, Breitbart News reported that the House voted to repeal this ban via the passage of the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, sponsored byHouse Committee on Veteran Affairs chairman Phil Roe (R-Tenn.). We are waiting for the Senate to follow suit so military veterans can know their Second Amendment rights are shielded like those of Social Security beneficiaries.

Repeal of Chuck Schumer gun controlGun Owners of America (GOA) is urging the House to repeal a gun control amendment originally added to legislation by then-Rep. Chuck Schumer in the late 1980s. The amendment makes it harder forpersons previously subject to a gun ban to regain their constitutional rights after paying their debt to society. GOAs Erich Pratt said, It is important for Congress to repeal the Schumer ban immediately. Too many good Americans are being prevented from exercising their Second Amendment rights. We hope that Rep. John Culberson (R-TX-7) will single-handedly remove the Schumer ban from his Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill.

Pass Legislation to End Operation Chock PointOperation Chock Point was used by the Obama administration to drive a wedge between financial institutions and firearm/ammunition makers and sellers. The practical outworking of the operation was simply another avenue for the lefts war on the Second Amendment. For example, on January 14, 2015, Breitbart News reported thatMike Schuetz, owner of Hawkins Gunsin Hawkins, Wisconsinran his businessaccounts through Heritage Credit Union until said credit union called him in for a meeting and told him to close his account because they do not service businesses that deal in guns. Schuetz said, This is just a back door way for those wanting to infringe on your rights to keep and bear arms and is nothing more than discrimination to gun owners.

A story similar to Schuetzs was told by Scottsdale, Arizona, companyAmerican Spirit Arms, and the Washington Times reported on gun stores in Miami, Florida, and Henderson, Nevada, that faced a similar struggle.

Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO-03) has introduced legislation tomake sure Operation Choke Point cannot be revived by rogue operators in the Department of Justice while Trump is in office.

Luetkemeyer released a statement, saying:

Last Congress, the House of Representatives took the first step in putting an end, once and for all, to Operation Choke Point by passing my legislation. Although there is a new Administration and Department of Justice in place, this legislation is necessary to ensure that no future Administration will have the opportunity to negatively impact individuals and legal businesses through this unprecedented initiative. We must continue to demand greater transparency and end the practice of allowing government bureaucrats to use personal and political motivations to block financial services to licensed, legally-operating businesses.

American gun owners voted for a pro-gun House and Senate to create a situation where a GOP trifectaHouse, Senate, White Housecould repeal gun control and pass pro-Second Amendment legislation that will positively impact American life for decades to come. It is time for McConnell and Ryan to act by passing these measures and repealing others, where apropos.

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.

Link:
Five Pro-Second Amendment Moves McConnell and Ryan Could be Making - Breitbart News

JF Finigan 6:35 a.m. MT May 23, 2017

A few cosmetic items does not make an AR-15 a "weapon of war," columnist Joanna Allhands says.

About 400 people gathered Wednesday, April 26, 2017, for the Michigan Second Amendment March at the State Capitol. Pro-gun and legal gun ownership activists met with legislators to discuss gun right issues, to show the political strength of Michigan's legal gun owners.(Photo: MATTHEW DAE SMITH | Lansing State Journal)

Robert Robbs Man up, Brnovich, and get Tucson's gun case out of our court on May 19 never says if Mr. Robb has a problem with Tucson (theoretically) destroying guns in the future, but reminds me of a friends question during a conversation about guns. (The friend has some nice guns and strong opinions.)

(Rephrased with multiple strong expletives deleted.) Is it possible to support the Second Amendment without being a prototypical junior jackass? I think I can answer that.

Back in the day, before the crazies were told by Wayne LaPierre and Charlton Heston that there was a Constitution and Second Amendment thereto, sportsmen owned guns, seasonally hunted birds and big game and participated in sundry activities with their guns.

There was little in the way of gun legislation issues. For example, there was no legislation (as was proposed recently) to require selling guns to the insane if they wanted one. Nope. No siree. Not a bit of it. Nor was there legislation prohibiting the destruction of guns in Tucson.

Unlike today, however, even Republican state legislators had at least an average IQ. No one was waiting for a house to house invasion by the feds to take away peoples guns.

The short answer:People still exist who agree with the Second Amendment, who own firearms and support gun safety training and practices - without wearing cheap camo to the grocery store, without engaging in panic gun buying encouraged by Wayne LaPierre, who dont pass incredibly stupid and unnecessary gun legislation.

But, then, there are also many more of the others.

JF Finigan, San Tan Valley

Read or Share this story: http://azc.cc/2rd6OjV

Continued here:
Letter: Can you support the Second Amendment without being a nut? - AZCentral.com

For the last two years, I have been on a mission to find the impossible. I have been trying to find the law that allows police chiefs to "do what they want" with firearms licensing. Those words from our city councilors, as well as their repeated claims of not knowing gun laws, rang so loudly in my ears I almost didn't hear Councilor Corey Belanger refer to our rights as "privileges." Now that I knew where they stood, my mission began.

I have asked gun rights groups, lawyers and state legislators, and haven't been cited any law. In fact, when I handed Lowell's firearm policy to a member of the Joint Committee on Public Safety, he said that there were "issues with items 5-10" which happen to be what our chief "wants to do." Another state representative and former police chief told me that chiefs were not allowed to add new requirements.

My path then led back to our City Council. They didn't provide answers before, so I decided to try again. I messaged the council twice in the past weeks -- no cited law. Well, here's a law that I did find on my mission: Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 says, "Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both .

So again, I ask City Council, what Massachusetts General Law allows our police chief to "do whatever he wants" with the Licensing of a Civil Right protected by the Constitution?

To see and hear Councilor Belanger refer to our rights as hobbies and privileges, watch the Jan. 19, 2016, on demand at http://www.ltc.org/watch/channel-99/city-council-on-demand/. He starts speaking around the 55-minute mark. Throughout the meeting, the council refers many times to the chief's ability to set whatever policy he wants.

DANNEL GANNON

Lowell

Visit link:
Chiefs can't ignore Second Amendment - Lowell Sun