Category Archives: Second Amendment

AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

FYI , AR-15 Rifles Are No Longer Included in Second Amendment AmmoLand Shooting Sports News Buckeye, AZ -(Ammoland.com)- By now you've probably heard about the Federal Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit's horrible anti-rights decision declaring that so-called assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second ...

More here:
FYI , AR-15 Rifles Are No Longer Included in Second Amendment - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

Where do you draw the line on the spectrum of weapons between, say, rocks and any weapons of mass destruction?

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend's email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

CJ Letter 2:23 p.m. ET March 10, 2017

Nuclear explosion(Photo: RomoloTavani, Getty Images/iStockphoto)

I am curious if Mr. Milby - Reader's Forum "Weapons of war protected by Second Amendment" March 8, 2017- believes that Second Amendment rights extend to nuclear weapons. If not, where does he draw the line on the spectrum of weapons between, say,rocks and anyweapons of mass destruction?In addition tonuclear bombs, are chemical weapons covered by the Second Amendment? What about lasers from satellites? Ballistic missiles? As a private citizen, I just want to know what I and my fellow citizens have a right to own and use in order to defendourselves from tyranny, government or otherwise. Or, maybe the interpretation of the Second Amendment should be more nuanced than Mr. Milby proclaims.

Christopher Rife

Louisville40291

Read or Share this story: http://cjky.it/2mu9SES

3:45

3:13

3:46

3:46

3:28

4:00

1:53

2:18

6:56

7:28

3:15

3:05

3:51

3:38

3:12

2:41

3:38

2:31

3:22

3:45

1:33

1:56

3:24

3:03

3:39

3:14

3:37

3:56

3:01

2:19

0) { %>

0) { %>

Excerpt from:
Second Amendment's illogical conclusion | Letter - The Courier-Journal

AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Pennsylvania Court: Automatic Knives not Protected by Second Amendment AmmoLand Shooting Sports News An appeal was filed shortly after the conviction, based solely on the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The appeal did not reference Pennsylvania's state Constitution. Pennsylvania has a strong right to bear arms provision in ...

More:
Pennsylvania Court: Automatic Knives not Protected by Second Amendment - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Put simply, writes Judge Robert King of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war.

In Kolbe v. Hogan, the court upheld Marylands ban on assault weapons, also known as rifles that look scary to people who know nothing about guns.

As talk radio host Darryl W. Perry of Free Talk Live notes, Kings perversely broad statement would cover a ban on the possession of rocks:

And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth. So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him 1st Samuel, Chapter 17

King also displays a poor grasp of history. No judicial power is required to extend the Second Amendment to cover weapons of war, because theyre precisely what it was intended to cover in the first place.

The Second Amendment was ratified only a few years after a citizen army many of its soldiers armed, at least at first, with weapons brought from home defeated the most fearsome professional military machine in the history of the world, the army of a global empire.

The express purpose of the Second Amendment was to guarantee the continued maintenance of an armed populace. In fact, the Second Militia Act of 1792 legally required every adult able-bodied white American male to own and maintain weapons of war (a musket or rifle, bayonet, powder and bullets) just in case the militia had to be called out.

Even in the 1939 case usually cited to justify victim disarmament (gun control) laws, U.S. v. Miller, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the reason Jack Miller/s short-barreled shotgun could be banned was that it WASNT a weapon of war: [I]t is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Yes, you read that right: The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment applies ONLY to weapons of war. I think thats too narrow myself, but at least it comes at the matter from the correct historical perspective.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is best understood in terms of a quote falsely attributed to Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto of the Japanese navy at the beginning of World War II: You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

Shame on King and the 4th Circuit for failing to uphold the plain meaning of shall not be infringed.

(Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism, thegarrisoncenter.org. He lives and works in north central Florida. Follow him on Twitter @thomaslknapp.)

Continue reading here:
The Second Amendment and 'weapons of war' - The Fayette Tribune

Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.

1

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

Legislators should support Second Amendment

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend's email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

Thomas P. Greven 4:25 p.m. ET March 7, 2017

Concealed carry(Photo: Getty Images / iStockphoto)

It is estimated that more than 15 million American citizens have permits to carry concealed firearms. Add to that millions more in the 12 states that allow concealed carry without a state-issued permit or license.

In each case, citizens are required to under go federal background checks before purchasing a firearm. Liberal Democrats insist on passing strict firearms laws. As is the case with New Yorks SAFE Act, passed behind closed doors in the middle of the night by Gov. Andrew Cuomos liberal regime, it only hinders honest American citizens from availing themselves of their Second Amendment rights.

I know of no criminal who while committing a criminal act would be dissuaded from using a firearm because it violates the law. The only thing these laws do is to allow liberal politicians to give a false sense of security to the public. Chicago is a prime example of a Democrat-controlled city with strict gun control laws and one of the highest homicide rates in the country.

Without the Second Amendment, the rest of our constitutional rights are in jeopardy. Its time for the voters to elect representatives who support our Second Amendment and a national state reciprocity for those who legally and responsibly carry firearms.

THOMAS P. GREVEN

CORNING

Read or Share this story: http://stargaz.tt/2mCIODZ

0:55

0) { %>

0) { %>

Read more:
Legislators should support Second Amendment - Star-Gazette - Elmira Star-Gazette

TCPalm

Will Trump Roll Out the Big Guns on Second Amendment Issues ... CALIFORNIA Avowed Second Amendment enthusiast Donald Trump drew plenty of scorn and outrage recently when he signed a bill overturning an Obama era restriction on ... Bill to end 'reckless' denial of Second Amendment rights in businessesArizona Daily Sun Other viewpoints: 2nd Amendment doesn't trump 1st - Opinion - The ...The Columbus Dispatch How America's Courts Are Threatening the Rule of Law - theTrumpet ...theTrumpet.com The Ramapo News all 7 news articles »

Link:
Will Trump Roll Out the Big Guns on Second Amendment Issues ... - CALIFORNIA

Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.

1

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

It is time to drop the pretense of defending our constitutional rights and call it what it is.

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend's email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

John Rose, West Des Moines, Letter to the Editor 6:48 p.m. CT March 6, 2017

A federal firearms transaction record, which includes a background check, lays near a selection of guns at Ron's Pawn and Gun in Des Moines.(Photo: Christopher Gannon/The Register, Christopher Gannon/The Register)Buy Photo

It seems as though the Republican majority in the Legislature is about to ram through a flurry of new gun laws that they falsely label Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment, like all of the others included in the Bill of Rights, is not an absolute. Like all others, is defined by interpretation of the federal courts. Therefore when some say that it enables open or concealed carry of guns with virtually no restrictions, they are simply voicing an opinion.

At this point, the Supreme Courthas ruled that the Second Amendment does indeed apply to the private ownership of guns by private citizens, but they also ruled that governments have the right to impose reasonable restrictions on that ownership. Several states have placed severe restrictions on concealed or open carry and others have all but removed all restrictions. The federal courts have declined to overturn any state law thatseverely restricts concealed or open carry. Therefore, the right to carry may be termed a legal right granted by state government, but it is not a constitutional right.

It is time for proponents of relaxing Iowas gun laws to drop the pretense of defending our constitutional rights and call it what it is. What they really want is to legislate their opinion into law, and if public opinion polls are to be believed, their opinion is at odds with the majority. Therefore, I challenge them to drop their attempts to ram these proposals through the legislature. If we really must have gun laws that are more lax, let the people decide through the referendum process.

John Rose, West Des Moines

Read or Share this story: http://dmreg.co/2myzBMX

3:46

3:46

3:28

4:00

2:18

3:15

3:05

3:38

3:12

2:41

0) { %>

0) { %>

See the original post:
Drop Second Amendment 'rights' pretense - The Des Moines Register - DesMoinesRegister.com

A closer look at the Second Amendment

In response to William Ivesters letter to the editor on Monday about the Second Amendment, I ask that he look again at the amendment. It is clever to pick phrases out of context, but that is misguided. Amendment 2 in its entirety 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.

Clearly, the last part of the sentence refers to the first part a well-regulated militia. In todays parlance, I believe that means each states National Guard. Last time I checked, every gun owner in the United States was not a member of the National Guard.

The judiciary is expressly empowered, by the Constitution, to review, analyze and rule on the meaning of the words of our Constitution. For example, where does the Constitution say guns? It doesnt. It says arms. It is the responsibility of the judiciary to determine what is meant by arms. Bombs? Anti-aircraft missiles? This word, like many others, has to be defined in each generation.

America of the 21st century is very different from the America of our Founding Fathers. Our ability to interpret the foundational documents of our Republic in light of the realities of the world we live in is crucial to the vitality of our nation. It is time, and it is appropriate and necessary, for our country to enact legislation that seeks to protect its citizens.

Cathy Swerdlow Longwood

As a graduate student studying writing at the University of Central Florida, I read Scott Maxwells Sunday column on grammar with great interest. It may surprise him to find out, though, that I am on his side.

While the self-appointed grammar police patrol public writing, ever vigilant for imagined crimes against the English language, modern linguistics scholars acknowledge that language changes, and the language rules change with it. They know and appreciate that Ernest Hemingway splits infinitives, Jane Austen ends sentences with prepositions, and E.B. White himself uses sentence fragments and comma splices. Great writing comes from brilliant use of words, not blind obedience to dictatorial grammar rules.

And kudos to Maxwell for defending his writing with a good dictionary. What a great counterattack to grammar police brutality. Hopefully, these militant grammarians will reference their own 21st-century rule book before they literally pounce on Maxwell again.

Leslie Nixon Ormond Beach

Normally, I would excoriate the Sentinels editor for printing a letter like Bill Lanes on Sunday with its theme of "drip drip drip" as "evidence of collusion" between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

However, since the mainstream news sources coupled with the intelligence community and Democratic politicians offer the same nonproof of such, I'll give the newspaper a pass on publishing "fake news."

David Holley Orlando

In response to President Trump's accusation that President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower, Sen. Marco Rubio said if we find out it's not true, he'll have to explain what he meant.

Trump's history is to tell a lie and defend it aggressively, or say the media twisted his meaning, Then tell another bigger lie to divert attention from the first one. His lies are tied up in so many knots 100 sailors in 10 years couldn't untie them.

How about reversing Rubios plan of action? Demand that Trump prove his claim is true.

There is a truism that it's much easier to prove a positive than a negative. If hes as smart as we've been told, Trump could clear this up in minutes. His mendacity is mindful of the boy who cried wolf. One day the wolves will devour their creator.

James Weatherspoon St. Cloud

Read the original here:
What the Second Amendment really says about guns: Letters - Orlando Sentinel

Its the Iowa Firearms Coalitions Second Amendment Day at the state capitol and gun rights advocates are ready to watch the Iowa House debate a bill that includes many of their priorities. Kurt Liske, vice president of the Iowa Firearms Coalition,called ita show of appreciation from House Republicans.

The fact that we have a day that we scheduled months out in advance, to have them essentially tailor their schedule to ours is almost unheard of, Liske said this morning. The fact that theyre doing this is a real testament to you guysthe fact that youre out there helping with campaign work, things like that.

More than 70 members of the Iowa Firearms Coalition crowded into a capitol committee room thismorning for a briefing on the bill. Members wore orange stickers that read: I support the Second Amendment and I vote.

Representative Matt Windschitl, a Republican from Missouri Valley who is floor manager of the gun bill, spoke to the group.

A lot of things in this bill, including the stand your ground provisions, have been a long time coming, Windschitl said, and it looks as though weve finally got an opportunity to push this down to the governors desk.

Windschitl is a trained gunsmith and his family runs a gun store in Missouri Valley. He uses the word phenomenal to describe the bill as currently crafted.

With the make-up of the legislature the way it is, we have gotten this bill to a place where I didnt even expect us to as far as the freedoms we have in here, Windschitl said. This sets us up for future successes. This sets us up so we can come back next year and get our freedoms back that have been encroached upon over generations.

Windschitl, whohas received death threats becauseof his advocacyfor the legislation, said theres some hate and discontent out there about the bill. He urged Iowa Firearms Coalition members to lobby theirSenators today.

Weve still got our work cut out for us when we move this over to the senate, Windschitl said. There are a lot of senators that are very eager to get all of this done, but the majority in the senate is new and so some of them have not faced the challenges that go into running bills like this, because they can get kind of controversial.

House debate of the bill is expected to get underway early this afternoon.

Read the original:
House to debate gun bill on IFC's 'Second Amendment Day' - Radio Iowa

Australian immigrant Nick Adams appeared on Good Morning Britain with Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid to discuss President Trumps supposed Muslim ban.

Things took an interesting turn when Reid suggested Trumps Muslim ban is ineffective and instead suggested the president take a hardline stance on guns.

As a resident, if you want to make the U.S. safer, you dont target immigrants, you look at the biggest problem, surely threatening Americans everyday, and thats the absolutely shocking level of gun crime, Reid told Adams. And if President Trump directed his attention to towards tightening up controls on firearms that would immediately make the country a safer place.

Do you not understand that people lookat this from outside the United States and scratch their heads going, Why would you not want to have extreme vetting on lunatics or criminals getting their hands on high-power guns?'

Adams response to why the Second Amendment is important was spot on:

Author's Bio: Beth Baumann

More:
Piers Morgan Gets a Dose of Second Amendment Reality on Good Morning Britain - Bearing Arms