Category Archives: Second Amendment

Liberal politicians who run states and cities have certain habits they come back to again and again. One is the passage of gun bans they know perfectly well are clear violations of the Second Amendment. Why do the do this? Partly because ideologically they cant help themselves. But also: They hope to create test cases in the courts that, they hope, will produce favorable rulings and thus establish case law that renders the entire Second Amendment null and void.

Toward that end, the State of Maryland scored a very big victory today, as the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an assault weapons ban that cant possibly be defended as constitutional. So why did it survive? Because there are many in the federal judiciary who share the goal of repealing the Second Amendment, and hope to be the judges assigned to these test cases. The Fourth Circuit really outdid itself with this one.

How bad was the ruling? Take it away, David French:

How can it reach such a conclusion? Remember the formula: contempt, willful ignorance, and fear.

First, lets look at the courts breathtaking contempt for individual rights. Rather than read the Supreme Courts controlling opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller according to its plain language, it deliberately distorts Justice Antonin Scalias majority opinion. In Heller, Scalia clearly stated that the sorts of weapons the Second Amendment protects are those that are in common use at the time, with exceptions that apply to those weapons that are dangerous and unusual.

Why the addition of and unusual? Because every single working gun ever made is dangerous. To illustrate his point, Scalia then provides examples of specific types of dangerous and unusual guns M-16 rifles and the like. Heres a news flash: The M-16 isnt the same as a civilian assault weapon like the AR-15. The M-16 variants in use in the United States military are capable of being fired in both semi-automatic and fully automatic (three-round burst) modes. If you think that the M-16 and AR-15 are alike, then walk to your local gun store and try to buy an M-16.

Go ahead. Ill wait.

Are you back yet? Do you have an M-16? No? Thats because its an entirely different category of weapon, governed by different federal statutes. The Fourth Circuit, however, deliberately conflated semi-automatic weapons and automatic weapons. And it went to absurd lengths to do so.

There is much more to Frenchs excellent analysis than I can fairly excerpt here, so please click through and read the whole thing.

Its very instructive to see that the Fourth Circuit so badly mangled Scalias argument in Heller to reach the conclusion it did. It speaks to a group of judges looking for a legal rationale for a ruling they were already bound and determined to issue, rather than following the law wherever it leads you, which is what judges are supposed to do.

Heres whats ironic, though, about the dreck that is this ruling and Frenchs solid analysis of what makes it so bad. Having lost the presidency, Congress, and the vast majority of governorships and state legislatures, the only thing the left still has to thwart conservative policy initiatives is the prospect of help from liberal judges. In this case, they upheld an unconstitutional law passed by a Democrat governor and legislature in a blue state. But elsewhere, as in Texas today, judges are striking down duly passed laws that by any reasonable standard pass constitutional muster.

The Supreme Court may yet save the Second Amendment, and maybe a judge that understands the separation of powers will restore the right of Texas lawmakers to decide who gets taxpayer money. But the reason this is so ironic is that David French was one of the leading voices arguing during the presidential campaign that the Supreme Court was not sufficient reason to support Donald Trump in the general election over Hillary Clinton.

I think French is a terrific writer and thinker on all kinds of issues, but he was #NeverTrump to the core and believed a Trump presidency would be so injurious to the conservative movement that even the prospect of a liberal court majority for the next generation wasnt enough reason to back Trump.

I wonder how happy French is today that Trump was elected, and that Neil Gorsuch stands a very good chance of being the deciding vote in a ruling that overturns the Fourth Circuit and restores the Second Amendment. The federal judiciary is out of control, and that is a much bigger problem that Donald Trumps communication style or anything else you dont like about him.

Read more here:
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decides the Second Amendment is just a suggestion - Canada Free Press

Attorney General Marty Jackley has joined a brief filed in the United States Supreme Court by 26 Attorneys General seeking to protect Second Amendment rights.

The Second Amendment gives law-abiding citizens the fundamental right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, their families and their homes. As Attorney General, I have a strong interest in protecting and defending our law-abiding citizens right to keep and bear arms, stated Jackley in a release.

The brief was filed in the case of Edward Peruta v. State of California.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that there was no right to concealed carry of a firearm.

The brief argues that requirements imposed to carry a gun in San Diego violate the Second Amendment. Those requirements are being interpreted to prevent ordinary citizens from qualifying for a permit.

The states contend that the requirements effectively ban the core right to bear arms for ordinary law-abiding citizens.

The Attorneys General argue that Both the text and history of the Second Amendment demonstrate that the right to keep and bear arms does not stop at the front door of the home.

Here is the original post:
State joins effort on Second Amendment - Rapid City Journal

Yes, the Second Amendment is outdated. Or, waitIm sorryare there still militias marching about? This is the right to bear arms qualifier, correct? Here's some of the historical context:

This amendment-turned-platitude was drafted into the Constitution purely so that slave owners could form militias and repel uprisings, so that southern white men could protect and maintain their lofty stands from the federal government, from slaves, from Native Americans, from foreign incursion; so that the settlers and newly-branded Americans could arm themselves in preparation for the wars and skirmishes with England and France and Spain and Mexico and Canada that all might occur on domestic soil (many of which did end up occurring); so that the country as a whole could arm itself against the kind of tyranny itd so freshly escaped; so that frontiersmen could hunt for food, kill grizzly bears and wolves and wildcats and fight with native tribes and foreigners, not so that peppy yeomen could defend themselves and their buddies from machine-gun madmen and terrorists.

This was no conception of the founding fathers, no consideration made by our untouchably sacred Constitution, which systemically provided for the non-relevancy of women, and for the legalization of slavery and the oppression of anybody not white, not landed, not malewhich has been amended 17 times, but apparently never again.

What exactly is the pro-gun rights supporters ideal world?

A world in which every Ma and Pa holstered themselves and their of age children each morning before running along to work or school? So that in the event of a mass shooting, the banker or checker or student or clerk everyman could draw and fire against the perpetrator(s)? Surely, there would be no trouble in this?

If, on the occasion of a wild man pulling a gun and firing into a crowd, three-dozen others did the same and fired at these perpetratorsthere wouldnt be a mess of a crossfire; a mess of figuring out who the bad guy iswho it is, exactly, all the good guys are supposed to be shooting at when everybody else has got a gun; no mess of dead innocents and mayhem as every man and women with a firearm looks to their neighbors empty holster and swings round?

Perhaps we should bring the gun manufacturers into the national bureaucracys fold? More so than they already are, that is. I see no real reason why the NRA shouldnt just be another governmental agency. Perhaps they could issue pistols to every American upon their 18th birthdaysurely, this would prevent violence on our city streets and in our city bars and our city schools. Lets just give each and every soul a killing machine; This, thissurelywould finally put an end to all the killing.

Yes, if only every college student, every barkeep, every passerby in this past Sunday mornings crowd on Welch Avenue that was shot into would have had a pistol strapped to their thigh, then the situation would have been all the more improved. If, after, the perpetrators had taken their shots and sped away, a good 15 or so men and women would have pulled out a gun and looked to each other in confusionthen look where we might be. Look what mightve been accomplished.

NoI must slow down. I speak crazily. I speak of exaggerations, of unfairly reached logical ends and enough! say the pro-gun rights folk. Not everybody needs a gun. Only those whove been properly vetted, whove taken the proper tests; those among us who could be reasonable and responsible under pressurethose who really know what theyre doing.

But wait? does this not eerily sound like something weve already got? Something, perhaps, like the police force?

This is why we ought to strike the Second Amendment in its current state. Replace it with something more apropos. Our world is a changed one from 1787, and it deserves some changed legislation.

I do not call for the prohibition of guns (which is impossible) or even for particularly strict gun control law (just stricter than what weve already got). But what I do really call forwhats desperately neededis some actually meaningful, relevant, worthwhile, updated Constitutional language that clamps down on what is such a pathetically weak truism and argument: the right to bear arms.

The above paragraphearlier in the week having been my concluding thoughtsmust now survive a few more addendums.

A bill has been proposed in the Iowa legislature which would provide for the legal carrying of firearms on campus grounds.

I need not restate so much of what Ive already mentioned, but would merely remark that whatever supposed belief in efficacy there could exist (on the part of the bills supporters) for the handing over of such a dangerous right to a pack of green 1822 year-olds is beyond delusional. This is an absolutely wild proposed solution to a very serious problem, and it deserves a more serious resolution.

More guns simply arent the answer. Theyve never been the answer. There are more complex issues at the root of these violent symptoms, and to treat the symptoms alone with such a surface-level reaction would be a grave mistake. It may take some horrible tragedy for the nation to unite on this front, and for that I am truly sorry.

Go here to see the original:
Felker: Guns on campus? How about we strike the Second Amendment? - Iowa State Daily

These past few weeks have been busy for those of us working in the media.

We have inaugurated a brand-new president, there have been executive orders and Twitter rants, nominations, protests, shadowy figures on the National Security Council, nominations, intrigue. We have brought back into vogue the time-honored American pastime of punching Nazis in the face, which turns out to be bad for Nazis but good for morale.

Simply put, there has been a lot to talk about recently.

One story that received attention for precisely 15 minutes before being buried under more tweets from the president was a piece of legislation, approved by Congress, that would ease gun restrictions for people suffering from mental illness.

The restriction was introduced under the Obama administration and requires more stringent background checks for customers who have been diagnosed with mental health issues. Nationwide, the rule affects roughly 75,000 people.

Understandably, gun control advocates and progressive groups have been upset about this, and it immediately raises questions about gun safety and responsibility. Gun control has long been a polarizing political issue, centering mainly on balancing the Second Amendment with public safety.

One issue lost in the debate is simply this: Guns are so much more than a convenient way to shoot each other (though that, too, should not be dismissed).

There is also the cultural aspect of gun ownership, something that goes back to the founding of our country. It has been a time-honored tradition throughout the United States to come together as a people, take aim with our fellow citizens, and go pew pew pew at all of our social and economic problems in order to make them go away.

This principle has served us well over the course of our history. It has been the guiding principle of our foreign policy, in fact, since at least World War II. In that time we have outlasted the Soviet Union, built the Interstate Highway system, and put a man on the moon.

An appropriate analogy can be found by our very own Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, in her statement during her confirmation hearing in the U.S. Senate, when she explained that guns were needed in public schools to protect students from grizzly bears:

I think probably there, I would imagine that theres probably a gun in the school to protect from potential grizzlies, DeVos said.

The comment sparked widespread ridicule in the media, but I think we should hear her out. Without guns in public schools, after all, how would we shoot down grizzly bears intent on breaking in through the windows and unlocked doors of the building?

If we ban all of the guns, wont that just embolden the grizzlies to terrorize the nation further? Grizzly bears, after all, are not law-abiding citizens. Law abiding citizens are law-abiding by default, because we say they are, which is why they get guns in the first place. The logic is clear: We cannot and will not be at the mercy of a lawless bear population breaking into the honey pots of law-abiding citizens across the nation.

DeVos, to her credit, sympathized with the victims of violent shootings when pressed to explain her views: Senator, if the question is around gun violence and the results of that, please know that I, Imy heart bleeds and is broken for those families that have lost any individual due to gun violence.

DeVos did not specify whether the bleeding was due to a bullet wound or some other form of injury unrelated to gun violence.

As we go forward, it would serve us well to consider each side of the debate.

On one hand, there is public safety to worry about, and the right of an individual not to be shot in the face. On the other hand, there is the Second Amendment guaranteeing citizens the right to bear arms, as well as our own traditions and heritage.

One can look at it the discharge of firearms as just one more time-honored American tradition. And these traditions, after all, are what make America great: shooting off fireworks into the neighbors yard every 4th of July; covering our vegetables in liquid cheese; hanging tiny American flags from the windows of our SUVs as we drive around the highways and back roads of our nation, the exhaust fumes rippling up into the clouds like a burnt offering to capitalism and the wonders of the internal combustion engine.

These are the relics of our cultural heritage that we will pass down to future generations, and gun violence seems to be a part of it, for better or worse. Our own Vice President Dick Cheney, in fact, shot a man in the face while on a hunting expedition in 2006, an incident he called an accident. And the country survived.

Life went on as it had before: Cars crossed and re-crossed our slowly-crumbling infrastructure, the sun rose and set over the office towers and strip malls of our nation, and somewhere out there in rural Wyoming, a lawless grizzly bear was put down in a heroic act of self-defense, children and teachers alike cheered in unison, and the educational process continued throughout the United States of America like it had for generations.

See original here:
The Second Amendment vs potential grizzlies - Psuvanguard.com

PCEtLVBTVFlMRT1QRFRMX0hlZC0tPg==

PHA+SU5ERVBFTkRFTkNFOiBBdCB0aGUgSG9saWRheSBJbm4gb24gUm9ja3NpZGUgUm9hZCwgbW9k ZWxzIHN0cnV0dGVkIGRvd24gYSBtYWtlc2hpZnQgcnVud2F5IGluIG9uZSBvZiB0aGUgaG90ZWwm IzgyMTc7cyBiYWxscm9vbXMuIEF0IHRoZSBlbmQgb2YgdGhlIHJ1bndheSwgdGhleSBnYXZlIGEg dHdpcmwgYW5kIGEgc21pbGUgYXMgdGhleSBsaWZ0ZWQgdGhlaXIgc2hpcnQgb3IgcmVhY2hlZCBp biB0aGVpciBiYWcgdG8gcmV2ZWFsIGEgcGlzdG9sLCB0dWNrZWQgYXdheSBzYWZlbHkgb3V0IG9m IHZpZXcuPC9wPjxwPiYjODIyMDtXZSB3YW50ZWQgdG8gc2hvdyBwZW9wbGUgaXQmIzgyMTc7cyBu b3Qgc28gb2J2aW91cywmIzgyMjE7IHNhaWQgQW1hbmRhIFN1ZmZlY29vbCwgdGhlIGhvc3Qgb2Yg dGhlIGZhc2hpb24gc2hvdy4gJiM4MjIwO0FzIHRoZXkgd2FsayBkb3duIHRoZSBydW53YXksIHlv dSYjODIxNztyZSBnb2luZyB0byBiZSBsb29raW5nIGZvciBhIGd1bi4mIzgyMjE7PC9wPjxwPk1v ZGVscyBzaG93ZWQgb2ZmIDUwIGNvbmNlYWxlZCBjYXJyeSBhY2Nlc3NvcmllcyBhbmQgY2xvdGhp bmcgaXRlbXMgYXQgUkVBTElaRSBGaXJlYXJtcyBBd2FyZW5lc3MgQ29hbGl0aW9uJiM4MjE3O3Mg c2Vjb25kIGNvbmNlYWxlZCBjYXJyeSBmYXNoaW9uIHNob3cgU3VuZGF5LjwvcD48cD5TdWZmZWNv b2wgaXMgdGhlIGRpcmVjdG9yIGFuZCBmb3VuZGVyIG9mIFJFQUxJWkUsIGEgZ3VuIGFkdm9jYWN5 IGdyb3VwIHRoYXQgZWR1Y2F0ZXMgYWJvdXQgZmlyZWFybSBzYWZldHkgYW5kIHdvcmtzIHRvIGRl ZmVuZCB0aGUgU2Vjb25kIEFtZW5kbWVudC4gPC9wPjxwPlNoZSBzYWlkIHRoZSBncm91cCYjODIx NztzIGZpcnN0IGZhc2hpb24gc2hvdyB3YXMgaW4gMjAxNCwgYnV0IGl0IG9ubHkgc2hvd2VkIHdv bWVuJiM4MjE3O3MgZmFzaGlvbi4gQWZ0ZXIgdGhhdCBnb29kIHJlY2VwdGlvbiwgc2hlIGRlY2lk ZWQgdG8gaGF2ZSBhIHVuaXNleCBzaG93IHRoaXMgeWVhciAmIzgyMTI7IHJpZ2h0IGJlZm9yZSB0 aGUgR3JlYXRlciBDbGV2ZWxhbmQgRnJpZW5kcyBvZiB0aGUgTmF0aW9uYWwgUmlmbGUgQXNzb2Np YXRpb24gYmFucXVldCBhdCB0aGUgc2FtZSBwbGFjZSwgc28gYXR0ZW5kZWVzIGNvdWxkIGhvcCBm cm9tIG9uZSB0byB0aGUgb3RoZXIuPC9wPjxwPlRoZSBzaG93IGZlYXR1cmVkIGEgcmFuZ2Ugb2Yg cHJvZHVjdHMgZm9yIGJvdGggbWVuIGFuZCB3b21lbiwgZnJvbSBzaGlydHMgYW5kIGNvcnNldHMg d2l0aCBzcGVjaWFsbHkgbWFkZSBwb2NrZXRzIHRvIGJhZ3MgYW5kIGhvbHN0ZXJzIGZvciBhIHJl bW92YWJsZSBvcHRpb24uPC9wPjxwPiYjODIyMDtUaGVzZSBhcmUgZXZlcnlkYXkgcGVvcGxlIHdo byBsaXZlIGV2ZXJ5ZGF5IGxpdmVzIHdpdGggY29uY2VhbGVkIGNhcnJ5LCYjODIyMTsgU3VmZmVj b29sIHNhaWQgb2YgdGhlIG1vZGVscy48L3A+PHA+U3VmZmVjb29sIGhvc3RlZCB0aGUgZmFzaGlv biBzaG93IGFsb25nc2lkZSBDaGFybGllIENvb2ssIGFsc28ga25vd24gYXMgdGhlIGd1eSB3aXRo IHRoZSBHbG9jayBhbmQgdGhlIHRydW1wZXQuPC9wPjxwPkNvb2sgaXMgYSBmaXJlYXJtIGluc3Ry dWN0b3IgZnJvbSBNYXNzYWNodXNldHRzLCBidXQgaGUgbWFkZSBhIG5hbWUgZm9yIGhpbXNlbGYg b24gWW91VHViZSBieSBwbGF5aW5nIHBvcHVsYXIgc29uZ3Mgb24gdGhlIHRydW1wZXQgd2l0aCBv bmUgaGFuZCB3aGlsZSBzaG9vdGluZyBhIHBpc3RvbCB3aXRoIHRoZSBvdGhlci4gSGlzIHZpZGVv cywgY2FsbGVkIEd1bkdyYW1zLCBoYXZlIG1vcmUgdGhhbiAxMCBtaWxsaW9uIHZpZXdzIGNvbWJp bmVkIG9uIFlvdVR1YmUuPC9wPjxwPlNldmVyYWwgb3RoZXIgcGVvcGxlIGtub3duIHRvIHRoZSBh cmVhIHRvb2sgcGFydCBpbiB0aGUgZmFzaGlvbiBzaG93LCBsaWtlIGZvcm1lciBDbGV2ZWxhbmQg QnJvd25zIHBsYXllciBCb2IgR29saWMgYW5kIGhpcyB3aWZlLCBLYXJlbiwgd2hvIGJvdGggdG9v ayB0dXJucyBvbiB0aGUgY2F0d2Fsay4gPC9wPjxwPk1hbnkgb2YgdGhlIGRlc2lnbmVycyBmZWF0 dXJlZCBpbiB0aGUgc2hvdyBzcGVjaWFsaXplIGluIGNvbmNlYWxlZCBjYXJyeSBhY2Nlc3Nvcmll cy4gPC9wPjxwPktyaXN0YSBEYXZpcywgdGhlIGRlc2lnbmVyIGFuZCBvd25lciBvZiBVcmJhbiBN b3h5IChMb2FkZWQgd2l0aCBTdHlsZSksIHNhaWQgc2hlIGRpZG4mIzgyMTc7dCByZWFsaXplIGhv dyBpcnJlc3BvbnNpYmx5IHNoZSB3YXMgY2FycnlpbmcgaGVyIGd1biB1bnRpbCBzaGUgaGFkIHRv IHB1bGwgaXQgb24gc29tZW9uZSB0cnlpbmcgdG8gYnJlYWsgaW50byBoZXIgY2FyLiBTaWNrIG9m IGxlYXZpbmcgaXQgYnVyaWVkIGluIGhlciBwdXJzZSwgc2hlIHN0YXJ0ZWQgZGVzaWduaW5nIHdo ZW4gc2hlIGZvdW5kIHRoZXJlIHdhcyBhIGxhY2sgb2YgYWNjZXNzb3JpZXMgdGhhdCB3ZXJlIHNh ZmUsIGFmZm9yZGFibGUgYW5kIHN0eWxpc2guPC9wPjxwPiYjODIyMDtObyBtYXR0ZXIgaG93IHN0 cm9uZyB3b21lbiBtaWdodCB0aGluayB3ZSBhcmUsIEkmIzgyMTc7bSBhbHdheXMgZ29ubmEgYmUg b3ZlcnBvd2VyZWQgYnkgYSBtYW4sJiM4MjIxOyBEYXZpcyBzYWlkLiAmIzgyMjA7W0EgZ3VuIGlz XSBhIG5lY2Vzc2l0eS4gSSBmZWVsIG5ha2VkIHdpdGhvdXQgaXQgJiM4MjMwOyBVbmZvcnR1bmF0 ZWx5LCB3ZSBsaXZlIGluIGEgcHJldHR5IHZpb2xlbnQgd29ybGQuIEl0JiM4MjE3O3MgdGhlIGJl c3QgZmVlbGluZyBpbiB0aGUgd29ybGQga25vd2luZyBJJiM4MjE3O20gcHJlcGFyZWQuJiM4MjIx OzwvcD48cD5HaW5hIFNwYWxsZXIsIHRoZSBkZXNpZ25lciBmb3IgU3BhcnRhZ29zLCBzYWlkIHNo ZSBqdXN0IHJlY2VudGx5IGJlZ2FuIGRlc2lnbmluZyBhY2Nlc3NvcmllcyBmb3IgdGhlIHNhbWUg cmVhc29uOiBTaGUgd2FudGVkIHRvIGNhcnJ5IGEgZ3VuIGZvciBzYWZldHksIGJ1dCB0aGUgb3B0 aW9ucyBzaGUgZm91bmQgd2VyZSBsaW1pdGVkIGFuZCB1bnN0eWxpc2guPC9wPjxwPiYjODIyMDtJ IGRvbiYjODIxNzt0IHJlbHkgb24gbXkgZ3VuIGFzIGEgZmlyc3QgcHJpb3JpdHkgJiM4MjMwOyBC dXQgYSBndW4mIzgyMTc7cyBhIHNob3dzdG9wcGVyLiBBIGxvdCBvZiB0aGUgdGltZXMsIHlvdSBk b24mIzgyMTc7dCBldmVuIG5lZWQgdG8gcHVsbCB0aGUgdHJpZ2dlciwmIzgyMjE7IFNwYWxsZXIg c2FpZC4gPC9wPjxwPk1vc3Qgb2YgdGhlIGNyb3dkIG9mIDEwMCBjaGFtcGlvbmVkIHRoZWlyIFNl Y29uZCBBbWVuZG1lbnQgcmlnaHRzIGZvciBwZXJzb25hbCBzYWZldHkgYXMgd2VsbCwgbGlrZSBK b2huIFNjaG1pdHQgb2YgU3VtbWl0IENvdW50eSwgd2hvIHdvcmUgYSBiYXNlYmFsbCBoYXQgdGhh dCBwcm9jbGFpbWVkICYjODIyMDtQcm90ZWN0ZWQgYnkgMm5kIEFtZW5kbWVudCBSaWdodHMuJiM4 MjIxOzwvcD48cD4mIzgyMjA7SSB0aGluayBldmVyeWJvZHkgc2hvdWxkIGhhdmUgY29uY2VhbGVk IGNhcnJ5LiBJdCYjODIxNztzIGEgcmlnaHQgZ2l2ZW4gdG8gdGhlIHBlb3BsZSwmIzgyMjE7IHNh aWQgU2NobWl0dCwgd2hvIGRpZG4mIzgyMTc7dCB3YW50IHRvIHNheSB3aGVyZSBoZSBsaXZlZCBm b3IgcHJpdmFjeSByZWFzb25zLiAmIzgyMjA7Q3JpbWluYWxzIHdpbGwgZ2V0IHRoZW0gd2hldGhl ciB3ZSB3YW50IHRoZW0gdG8gaGF2ZSB0aGVtIG9yIG5vdC4gV2UgZG9uJiM4MjE3O3QgbmVlZCB0 byB0cnkgdG8gc3RvcCBjcmltaW5hbHMgYW55bW9yZS4gV2UgbmVlZCB0byBlZHVjYXRlIHRoZSBy ZXN0IG9mIHNvY2lldHkgb24gd2hhdCB0byBkby4mIzgyMjE7IDwvcD48cD5TY2htaXR0IHNhaWQg Z3VuIHNhZmV0eSBpcyBhIE5vLiAxIHByaW9yaXR5IGZvciBoaW0gd2hlbiBkZWFsaW5nIHdpdGgg ZmlyZWFybXMuIEhlIGNvbXBhcmVkIGhhbmRsaW5nIGEgZ3VuIHRvIGRyaXZpbmcgYSBjYXIuPC9w PjxwPiYjODIyMDtJdCYjODIxNztzIHNvIGVhc3kgZm9yIHlvdSB0byBzdG9wIHRoaW5raW5nIGFi b3V0IHNhZmV0eSwmIzgyMjE7IFNjaG1pdHQgc2FpZC4gJiM4MjIwO1RoaXMgaXMgbm8gZGlmZmVy ZW50IHRoYW4gdGhhdC4gQ2FycyBraWxsIG1vcmUgcGVvcGxlIHRoYW4gZ3VucyBkby4mIzgyMjE7 PC9wPjxwPk9uIHRvcCBvZiBwZXJzb25hbCBzYWZldHksIHNvbWUgZm9sa3MgYXQgdGhlIGZhc2hp b24gc2hvdyBwcmVmZXJyZWQgdG8gY2FycnkgZ3VucyBzbyB0aGV5IGNvdWxkIHByb3RlY3Qgb3Ro ZXJzIGluIG5lZWQsIHRvbywgaWYgdGhlIHNpdHVhdGlvbiBhcm9zZS48L3A+PHA+JiM4MjIwO1Ro ZSBiYWQgZ3V5cyBoYXZlIGd1bnMsIHNvIEkgdGhpbmsgaXQmIzgyMTc7cyBpbXBvcnRhbnQgc29t ZSBnb29kIGd1eXMgaGF2ZSBndW5zIHRvbywmIzgyMjE7IHNhaWQgS2VsbGllIFJpdGNoZXkgb2Yg TWFuc2ZpZWxkLjwvcD48cD4mIzgyMjA7WW91JiM4MjE3O3JlIGFkZGluZyBzb21ldGhpbmcgYmVz aWRlcyBldmFkZSBhbmQgZWx1ZGUsJiM4MjIxOyBhZGRlZCBoZXIgaHVzYmFuZCBKb2huIFJpdGNo ZXkuICYjODIyMDtZb3UgY2FuIGFjdHVhbGx5IHByb3RlY3QgcGVvcGxlLiYjODIyMTs8L3A+PHA+ QSZhbXA7RSYjODIxNztzIENoYW5uZWwgVmljZWxhbmQgd2FzIGFsc28gYXQgdGhlIGZhc2hpb24g c2hvdyBmaWxtaW5nIGZvciBpdHMgZG9jdW1lbnRhcnkgc2VyaWVzIGNhbGxlZCA8ZW0+U3RhdGVz IG9mIFVuZHJlc3MsIDwvZW0+d2hpY2ggdHJhdmVscyBhcm91bmQgdGhlIHdvcmxkIHRvIGNvdmVy IGZlbWFsZSBlbXBvd2VybWVudCB0aHJvdWdoIHRoZSB3b3JsZCBvZiBmYXNoaW9uLjwvcD48cD4m IzgyMjA7SXQmIzgyMTc7cyBvdXIgU2Vjb25kIEFtZW5kbWVudCByaWdodCBbdG8gY2FycnldLCYj ODIyMTsgc2FpZCBTcGFsbGVyLiAmIzgyMjA7SXQmIzgyMTc7cyBlbXBvd2VyaW5nLCBhbmQgaXQm IzgyMTc7cyBmdW4uJiM4MjIxOzwvcD48cD5UaGVyZXNhIENvdHRvbSBjYW4gYmUgcmVhY2hlZCBh dCAzMzAtOTk2LTMyMTYgb3IgPGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOnRjb3R0b21AdGhlYmVhY29uam91cm5h bC5jb20iPnRjb3R0b21AdGhlYmVhY29uam91cm5hbC5jb208L2E+LiBGb2xsb3cgaGVyIG9uIFR3 aXR0ZXI8YSBocmVmPSJodHRwczovL3R3aXR0ZXIuY29tL1RoZXJlc2FfQ290dG9tIiB0YXJnZXQ9 Il9ibGFuayI+Jm5ic3A7JiM2NDtUaGVyZXNhX0NvdHRvbSZuYnNwOzwvYT4uPC9wPg==

See the original post here:
Second Amendment champions check out stylish options at concealed carry fashion show - Akron Beacon Journal

When Justice Antonin Scalia passed away suddenly last year, the Supreme Court lost its premier conservative voice and defender of the Second Amendment.

Justice Scalia was a champion of individual freedoms, and adhered to a strong originalistphilosophy of interpreting the Constitution. With little room for the personal politics that many judges try to inject into court rulings, Scalia relied on the text of the document to decide cases.

After eight years of anti-gun policies from the Obama Administration an open seat on the Court is a welcome opportunity to return to the principles of the Constitution.

That is also why its good news President Trump chose Neil Gorsuch, a current federal appellate judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, as his nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court. Gorsuch is someone who can fill this critical void left by Justice Scalia.

Gorsuch has also followed an originalist interpretation of the Constitution during his legal career, having been appointed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals by President George W. Bush, and before that, serving in the Department of Justice.

A firm belief in adhering to the freedoms spelled out in the Constitution by our Founding Fathers has given Judge Gorsuch a steady hand, and made him a popular and approachable member of the 10th Circuit. Though he has only ruled on a few Second Amendment related cases, Gorsuch has proved himself to be a defender of gun rights.

He made his stance very clear when he wrote in one legal opinion that "the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly."

With the current Court almost deadlocked on gun issues, any potential cases that come before the Supreme Court this year could have a make-or-break impact on Second Amendment rights in this country. If the Court decides to hear any gun related cases this year, it is critical that there be a majority of justices on the bench who believe in the Constitutional right to bear arms.

One potential case that could come before the Supreme Court this year challenges an individuals right to carry a gun for self-defense, and requiring them to prove to the government that they have a legitimate reason for doing so.

In 2014, Peruta v. California was decided by three judges on the 9th Circuit, who ruled that San Diego Countys policy of a gun owner needing a documented "good cause" in order to obtain a concealed carry permit was in violation of the Second Amendment.

However, the victory for the Constitution was short-lived, and the ruling was appealed. All 11 judges on the 9th Circuit were called in to rehear the case, and the ruling was overturned in 2016. The California Rifle and Pistol Association has petitioned the Supreme Court to review this case, and if their request is granted, Gorsuch will be a crucial vote. No citizen should need a government approved "reason" to carry a firearm it is already expressly stated in the Constitution.

An appeal has also been filed to ask the Supreme Court to hear a challenge to District of Columbia v. Heller, which in 2008 affirmed that it is a constitutional right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion for that case, which was decided in a close 5-4 decision.

If the case is accepted by the Court, the justices will be asked to rule on a persons right to carry a gun outside their home for self-defense. With the decision in Heller being so close, it is critical that the Second Amendment have another advocate on the Court.

After eight years of anti-gun policies from the Obama administration, which sought to chip away at the right to bear arms, an open seat on the Court is a welcome opportunity to return to the principles of the Constitution. Instead of special interests and judges who attempt to shape public policy through court cases, Gorsuchs originalist and textualist viewpoint provides clear guidance uninfluenced by politics.

In the statement he gave following the announcement of his nomination, Gorsuch said, "Standing here, in a house of history, and acutely aware of my own imperfections, I pledge that if I am confirmed, I will do all my powers permit to be a faithful servant to the Constitution and laws of this great country."

With all of the potential challenges to the Constitution in the coming years, Gorsuch provides a foothold on what could be a rocky path.

Tim Schmidt is the president and founder of the U.S. Concealed Carry Association,and may be contacted at Press@USCCA.com.

Excerpt from:
Gorsuch Could Save the Second Amendment | LifeZette - LifeZette

Campus carry legislation is back, with several bills up for consideration in the House Public Safety & Homeland Security Committee this week.

Gov. Nathan Deal vetoed a measure last year that would have allowed guns on college campuses, but state Rep. Eddie Lumsden, R-Rome, said he expects these to be more acceptable.

These are some modified bills, after having conversations with the governor, he said.

Lumsden, a retired Georgia State patrol trooper, sits on the committee that will consider House Bill 280 today. He quoted the Second Amendment in explaining his support of campus carry rights.

And a lot of urban campuses are very porous, so to speak,, he added. Just because you have a gun-free zone doesnt mean its gun-free.

HB 280 would allow people with permits to carry concealed firearms on all property owned or leased by a public institution of post-secondary education. The only exemptions would be at sports facilities, student housing to include fraternity and sorority houses and on-campus preschools.

An omnibus gun permit measure, HB 292, also is on the committees agenda. It contains a number of additions and revisions to the state law, including applications for airports, schools and courthouses. Other provisions address legalities for newcomers with permits from other states and people who have been involuntarily committed.

A subcommittee Lumsden sits on also will hold hearings on two gun bills today. HB 406 deals with reciprocal permit agreements between states. HB 232, requiring gun safety training to renew a permit, appears problematic to Lumsden.

Most conservatives dont believe its wise of government to require training because this is a right, not a privilege, he said. We all believe it would be a good thing, if youre going to carry a weapon, you be trained in its use. But this gets into constitutional questions.

The Georgia General Assembly officially reconvenes Tuesday for the 21st day of its 40-day session, which is slated to run through March 31.

Lumsdens election cleanup bill, HB 42, has already passed the House and is expected to come up for a full Senate vote Wednesday. It allows elections supervisors to correct mistakes on a ballot and lets communities use federal, rather than state, run-off dates to save money on elections.

Im told the lieutenant governor wants it to move. There are applications for some upcoming run-off elections, Lumsden said.

There are 18 candidates in an April 18 special election for the 6th Congressional District, vacated when Tom Price was tapped as President Donald Trumps secretary of health and human services.

Additionally, qualifying opens Wednesday for the election to replace state Sen. Judson Hill, R-Marietta, who is among those seeking Prices seat.

Lumsden also has two insurance housekeeping bills slated to move this week. HB 174 updates the law to acknowledge claims may be paid by check or other modern methods.

Right now, it uses legal tender, which means cash money, he said. Ive never seen a claim settled with cash.

HB 262 adds stand-alone dental insurance plans to the list of insurers that may use online, rather than printed, provider directories.

More:
Rep. Eddie Lumsden says Second Amendment rights should not be treated as privileges - Rome News-Tribune

FRANKFORT, Ky. (WKYT) - Governor Matt Bevin has joined in filing an amicus brief over a California Second Amendment case.

The governor's office announced on Monday that Governor Bevin has joined 25 other states in the brief over Peruta v. San Diego County. The second amendment case is challenging if a California law restricting citizens' rights to carry handguns outside their homes for self-defense is constitutional.

An amicus brief is a legal document filed in court cases by non-litigants with a strong interest in the subject matter.

The 26 states in the brief say that, when it comes to regulating gun rights, California thinks that the State can do things that would be unthinkable in other areas of constitutional law.

The other states included in the brief are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

See the rest here:
Governor Bevin joins amicus brief over California Second ... - WKYT - WKYT

Posted: Feb. 20, 2017 1:14 pm

Editor:

I read with some skepticism the Feb. 10 New Jersey Herald story about two young neophytes seeking to challenge incumbent Assemblyman Parker Space and his announced running mate, Hal Wirths, in the June Republican primary.

Of particular interest was the claim that Assemblyman Space is not fighting for Second Amendment rights -- an allegation I know firsthand to be incorrect.

As executive director of New Jersey's official state rifle and pistol association, I can state unequivocally that Assemblyman Space is one of the Garden State's true Second Amendment champions. Not only has he has consistently and reliably opposed every piece of gun control and anti-hunting legislation to cross his desk, but he has also sponsored major pro-gun initiatives including right-to-carry.

Anyone can pay lip service to the Second Amendment, but few can back that up with a proven record of action like Assemblyman Space.

To be sure, there are incumbents who should be challenged in the primaries on Second Amendment grounds, but Assemblyman Space is not one of them.

Scott L. Bach

Executive Director, Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs

Newfoundland

Read the original post:
Space a champion of 2nd Amendment - New Jersey Herald

Senator Marco Rubios resurrectedSecond Amendment Enforcement Actwill ensure that law-abiding citizens in Washington, D.C. can exercise their Second Amendment right to carry a firearm, should it pass.

Emotionally charged anti-gunners are doing their best to keep the current stringent D.C. gun laws in place. Unfortunately, they dont understand that federal laws, already in place, are more than sufficient to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

It is essential for all to remember that criminals, by the very definition of the word, are law breakers. Boundaries are disregarded, and they act upon their own volition; without concern of consequence. Law-abiding citizens are consistently punished by having their rights infringed upon with layers and layers of laws that are in place to detour the criminal. The oxymoron here is that law-abiding citizens will obey the laws, and criminals wont.

How will enacting layers of laws over and above federal laws change the demeanor of someone who disregards the law, because they act with moral turpitude? Simply put, it wont.

Anti-gunners with their flair for the dramatic and with no foundationin fact spread misinformation. For those of us who know and understand the laws, it is nothing less than frustrating. For those of you who dont, become familiar with federal, state, and your local guns laws. Put them in context of criminal behavior.

Allowing D.C.s excessive gun laws to stand as is only benefits criminals. They already know that they likely wontface life threatening resistance when committing a crime.

The Second Amendment Enforcement Act will put guns in the hands of the good guys. So, when the criminals hear their targetsmay be armed in order to protect themselves, it could be the game-changer that helps to deter crime in D.C.

Author's Bio: Pamela Jablonski

Read more here:
Rubio and his Resurrection of The Second Amendment Enforcement Act - Bearing Arms