Category Archives: Second Amendment

Since August of 2015, Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, has takena stance against the Social Security Administrations action to provide names of Social Security recipients to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Neil W. McCabe, from Breitbart, has confirmed that Senator Manchin will continue his support by voting to overturn this overreach of the SSA. This will eliminate pending restrictions of the right to bear arms onsome of the countrys most vulnerable citizens.

In a statement released on Manchins website, the senator said:

As a law-abiding gun owner, hunter, card-carrying life member of the NRA and Second Amendment advocate, I have always supported a West Virginians right to bear arms.This potential overreach by the Social Security Administration is a blatant infringement on the Second Amendment rights of millions of Americans. The assumption by the SSA that seniors and individuals with certain disabilities are a threat to society is both inaccurate and misguided and should not be grounds to revoke someones constitutional rights. That is why I joined my colleagues in strongly urging the Administration to end efforts to move forward with this proposal.

Its important topoint outthatpeople need to do their research and stop jumping to dangerous conclusions that are not based in fact. Disability status based upon age orvarious diseases does not equate to a person being inherently dangerous to themselves or anyone else.

Under a law enacted during the Obama Administration, the private information that the SSA could turnoverwould reside within the NICS database, which currently houses the names of individuals prohibited from purchasing or carrying a firearm. It is a violation of an individuals rights and privacy for the SSA to make their owndetermination about thoserecipients future actions based solely upon receiving certain benefitswithout the due process of the law. Once a persons information is entered into the NICS database, theywill immediately be deemed a threat to society. This will stand without any additional proof, other than the SSAs determination of having a propensity for or history of a violent past, present, or future.

Fortunately repealing this infringement upon millions of Americans right to bear arms seems to have gained strength during this new Congress.

The bill is currently awaiting movement in the Senate, where it currently resides after having passed through the House.

Author's Bio: Pamela Jablonski

Originally posted here:
The Fight to Ensure the Right to Bear Arms for Social Security Recipients Continues - Bearing Arms

Mark Hopkins | Special to the Daily News

Why did we need a militia/gun amendment added to the Constitution?

As is true with most momentous decisions in the life of our country, to fully understand why something was done, we must study the times in which such decisions were made.

The why of the Second Amendment in the 1780s is very different from answering that same question in 2017. The United States was a very different country in the years following the Revolution than it is today. When President Washington first took office, two key challenges faced him and the leadership in Congress.

First, the Revolutionary War had concluded just eight years before. England had been defeated on our shores and withdrew their troops. However, that didnt make us the strongest nation on the globe. England still had the strongest combination of army and navy. They still controlled Canada, just a short trip up the Hudson River from New York City. In short, they were still a threat to us.

At the conclusion of the war, General Washington and the leadership in Congress did not have the money to support a standing army. It was the consensus that the U.S. must make do with smaller, live-at-home militia units in the various states rather than a centralized army. Thus, it was their hope that the new country could be protected with a citizen army that was armed and ready to be called up at a moments notice. To make that work, each military age male needed to be armed and ready if needed.

Second, several citizen rebellions had occurred between the end of the war and the time of the passage of the new Constitution. Principal among these were the Shays Rebellion in Massachusetts and the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania. Without the creation of a local militia, neither state had the firepower to protect the government or the people.

In short, our young country did not have the money to support a standing army so adding the Second Amendment was for the expressed purpose of making sure that each state had the legal right to call men to arms. Just as important, it was necessary that those men were able to join the militia fully armed and ready to defend their state and their government.

The contention from some that the framers of the Constitution adopted the Second Amendment because they wanted an armed population that could take down the U.S. government should it become tyrannical just has no credence in history.

In past columns about the Second Amendment, we have established the historical context of the creation of the Second Amendment. The primary purpose was to create a legal foundation for a state militia, the forerunner of our National Guard. President Washington not only wrote letters to support such action but actually created his own militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania. Congress supported his action by creating The Militia Act, that allowed states to call up militia units to protect the government and the people as needed.

Resources used for these columns on the Second Amendment came from His Excellency: George Washington by Joseph Ellis (2004), James Madisons arguments for a strong federal government in The Federalist Papers, (1777-78) and The Readers Companion to American History by John A. Garraty and Eric Foner, which tells the stories of Shays Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion.

If a reader missed the two earlier columns, contact me at presnet@presnet.net for copies.

Dr. Mark L. Hopkins writes for More Content Now and Scripps Newspapers.

Read more:
MARK HOPKINS: Why did the Constitution need the Second Amendment? - Port St. Joe Star

5479349

With the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to replace Antonin Scalia on the Surpeme Court, Second Amendment supporters can celebrate. That would be very premature.

The battle over the confirmation of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General is going to be a cakewalk compared to the fight over Gorsuch. You have some snowflakes on the Left crying about how this Supreme Court seat was stolen from Merrick Garland (conveniently ignoring that Joe Biden threatened to do the same in 1992, and Schumer made similar comments in 2008).

What do you expect when the fight is for all the marbles? In this case, Gorsuch is a likely fifth vote to uphold the ruling made by the District Court in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands that tossed a semi-auto ban and a number of other strict gun laws. Hes the fifth vote that secures the Heller ruling that recognized the Second Amendment as an individual right and which tossed out D.C.s handgun ban. The McDonald case, which extended the prohibition on banning handguns to the states, is also secure.

When Gorsuch is confirmed and that, folks, is gonna be one hell of a fight. Senator Chuck Schumer wants 60 votes for confirmation. I dont necessarily object to that popping off the nuke option now makes it easier to replace the next openings (potentially Ginsburg and Breyer) with reliable conservatives. The good news is that Gorsuch briefly hit the 60-vote threshold until Jeanne Shaheen flip-flopped. This is why Kelly Ayotte and Mark Kirk mattered, people. Better to have started from 54 to work your way to 60, than the present 52.

In short, we need eight Democrats to cross over and vote. And while there are a lot of Senate Democrats facing re-election in states Trump won, to win their primaries, they must show fealty to the activists, donors, and Party leadership. Who do you think provides the money for the DNC efforts on behalf of Heidi Heitkamp, Jon Tester, and Joe Donnelly? The same folks who also donate to the DNC efforts for Chuck Schumer and the most anti-gun members of the House and Senate. By the way, did Heitkamp, Tester, and Donnelly back Jeff Sessions as AG? No.

The good news, if anything, is that the anti-Second Amendment forces and the rest of the Left seem to have been unable to really reach beyond their base on the issue of guns. Furthermore, outside that issue, Trump has made some serious progress (notably in bring jobs in). If that continues over the next four years, we could see significant gains in the Senate and a second Trump term.

That is a big if, though. The one thing we have seen in the first weeks is that the Left isnt just going to roll over after losing the 2016 presidential election. If anything, they intend to fight as furiously as they can to take our rights, and they are going to be persistent about it. We will need to match that persistence and fury to keep our rights.

Read the original here:
Will Sixty Senators Vote To Protect The Second Amendment? - Daily Caller

NorthJersey 12:06 a.m. ET Feb. 12, 2017

Ramsey Mayor Deirdre Dillon presides over the standing-room-only crowd of about 150 people hearing the public comments about the ordinance prohibiting the discharge of firearms within town, even at a gun range, at the Ramsey Borough Council meeting on Wednesday night.(Photo: Adam Anik/NorthJersey.com)

We consistently support smart gun laws. There are too many guns in the hands of people who should never have access to a firearm. At the same time, citizens have a constitutional right to own a firearm and a responsibility, if they choose to own one, to know how to use it. So what is happening in Ramsey is troubling.

A developer from Pennsylvania wants to convert the former Liberty Travel building into a firing range with 67 firing stalls, in addition to space for a restaurant and retail sales. It would be called the Screaming Eagle Club.

Council: Ramsey tables vote on gun law, prepares forlitigation

Letter: Ramsey should not fear shooting range

The moniker gives us pause, but Ramsey has an ordinance on the books since 1961 that, while prohibiting the firing of any pistol, shotgun, rifle or other type of firearms anywhere in the borough, exempts indoor and outdoor firing ranges.

As Staff Writer Tom Nobile reported, the borough was set to vote on a change in the ordinance on Wednesday night, but postponed a vote after being informed that litigation opposing the change would ensue. So for now or until the borough lawyers-up with a pro-bono-inclined law firm the proposal is on hold.

We understand that the proposed 60,000-square-foot indoor firing range may not be exactly what Ramsey officials want to see in their community, but we cannot support changing ordinances on the spot to keep out a legal business, particularly one supported by the Second Amendment.

If the borough has a problem with the size of the range and that it will create legitimate safety issues, make that case. If there is concern that adding a restaurant or shops may create a public safety issue, make that case. But we would be surprised if that case would be successful in court.

A firing range of this size will bring a lot of gun-toting folks into Ramsey. Most will be legal gun owners going to a controlled space to hone their skills. The borough should ensure there is proper supervision and safety checks. Yet that will not preclude the possibility of something bad happening.

This past July, a man committed suicide at the Gun for Hire range in Woodland Park. He was the seventh gun-range suicide in New Jersey since 2014. The July death raised concerns over ranges that rent guns to walk-in customers in many cases it is as simple as showing a valid drivers license;no background check is required.

Ramsey officials, as they study legal options, should determine whether they can prohibit gun rentals at the proposed range. That would mitigate some of the risks associated with the facility. We understand why many Ramsey residents dont want the range, but we also recognize that many people do. Wednesdays Borough Council meeting was contentious.

There may be ways for the council to restrict the size and scale of the proposed firing range, but we are wary of the timing of this proposed change to a borough ordinance that had permitted indoor firing ranges in Ramsey.

The developers attorney, James Jaworski, said Wednesday, The Second Amendment protects not just the right to keep and bear arms, but the right to be proficient in the keeping and bearing of arms.

We agree. Citizens have a right to bear arms, and we are all safer when they have been properly trained in their use.

Read or Share this story: http://northjersy.news/2l2iJxB

Here is the original post:
Editorial: Second Amendment rights in Ramsey - NorthJersey.com - NorthJersey.com

AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

CGF, Others Seek Circuit Court Review in Major Second Amendment Lawsuit AmmoLand Shooting Sports News SAN FRANCISCO -(Ammoland.com)- Today, attorneys for The Calguns Foundation (CGF), Second Amendment Foundation, and two individual plaintiffs filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking en banc (full-court) review of a ...

See the rest here:
CGF, Others Seek Circuit Court Review in Major Second Amendment Lawsuit - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Proposals involving guns are always controversial (File photo) Proposals involving guns are always controversial (File photo)

LAKEVIEW, Ore. - A measure challenging gun regulations is popping up around the state. Since 2015, four counties have passed a measure known as the Second Amendment Preservation ordinance, and commissioners in Malheur, Union and Lake counties have heard the same measure in the past few weeks.

The ordinance is a reaction to the Oregon Firearms Safety Act, passed by the state Legislature in 2015, which requires background checks for transfers of firearms between private parties. These county ordinances allow sheriffs to ignore this law - which gun advocates see as unconstitutional.

But Ceasefire Oregon Executive Director Penny Okamoto said there's a fatal flaw in the measure.

"There's an Oregon firearms pre-emption law that states that counties, municipalities, cities actually can't make certain laws regarding certain aspects of firearm sales, ownership, storage," Okamoto said. "So these ordinances or resolutions really are largely very symbolic."

The legality of this ordinance is still in question.

Rob Taylor of Coos County is one of the chief petitioners for the Second Amendment Preservation ordinance. He said he wants Oregon to have what he called "sanctuary counties" for the Second Amendment.

"The same way Oregon has become a sanctuary state for immigration," he said.

While Okamoto and Taylor disagree over the measure, they both point to poor mental health services for Oregonians and the importance of addressing those shortfalls to prevent violence.

Taylor said Gov. Kate Brown's proposal to shut down a mental health hospital in Junction City could hurt the people it serves.

"It doesn't matter whether they get a gun or a car or a bomb. If they have those thoughts, they're going to act upon it," he said. "And so the best thing to do is to have places like mental hospitals so we can have people go and get those problems healed or cured."

Okamoto said one of the biggest concerns related to gun violence is suicide, which accounts for most of the violent deaths from guns.

"You can pass all these ordinances you want, but that's not really taking a look at the fact that a lot of people in these rural counties are using their guns to kill themselves," she said. "And that's an issue that really needs to be addressed."

Go here to see the original:
Oregon counties' gun measures spark debate - KTVZ

RAMSEY, N.J. Amidst threat of a lawsuit from the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, the Ramsey Borough Council Wednesday held off on adopting an ordinance that would prohibit firearms from being discharged at shooting ranges within the borough.

The council voted to table the ordinance until the next council meeting on Feb. 22.

We are in the process of obtaining a national law firm to represent the borough pro-bono in the event of litigation since the New Jersey Second Amendment Society has threatened the borough with costly and protracted litigation if we move forward with the amendment, Ramsey Mayor Deirdre Dillon told a packed meeting room.

The borough attorney advised the mayor and council to table to the ordinance until that law firm is retained, Dillon said.

The ordinance at issue, introduced last month, revises one currently on the books that prohibits the firing of any pistol, shotgun, rifle or other type of firearms anywhere in the borough, but exempts indoor and outdoor firing ranges.

The revisions to ban the use of firearms at shooting ranges as well were introduced after the borough received an application to create a 60,000-square-foot indoor firing range at the former Liberty Travel building on Spring Street. An application for the facility dubbed the Screaming Eagle Club is pending with the Ramsey Planning Board.

RELATED: With Firing Range Pending, Ramsey To Consider Tightening Gun Law

New Jersey Second Amendment Society President Alexander Roubian sent a letter to the mayor and council on Feb. 1, stating: Our legal team is currently preparing the necessary Complaint to file with the N.J. District Court in the event the Ordinance is passed; however we ask that the proposed ordinance be pulled from the agenda so we can work together on an amicable solution without the need for costly litigation.

Roubian, a graduate of Ramsey High School, addressed the mayor and council in person Wednesday. We are very confident that we have a very, very good case here, he said, warning prevailing parties will be recovering their legal fees.

It is a chance we are willing to take, Dillon responded.

A string of additional speakers took to the mic to voice their concerns about both safety and Second Amendment issues.

RELATED: Ramsey Residents Say 'No' To Proposed Indoor Shooting Range

We like the town the way it is, a bucolic beautiful town that is safe for our children, said Ramsey resident Ellen OKeefe.

Andrew Stravitz, of Allendale, pointed out that the Waldwick Pistol & Rifle Club has been a few miles away from Ramsey for about 50 years. In 50 years, zero injuries in the shooting range over there, he said.

Barbara Puccia, of Ramsey, said It only takes one, and one person only, that has bad intentions that can cause a tragedy in this town.

Go here to see the original:
Second Amendment Group Threatens Lawsuit, Ramsey Tables Gun ... - Hackensack Daily Voice

A bill introduced in Tennessee on Wednesday would make it cheaper to buy a gun for one weekend of the year in that state, with a special tax-free event.

Surprisingly - a county Democratic official opposes the idea.

WJHL reports, State Rep. Dennis Powers, introduced House Bill 744 or Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday. The measure would remove the sales tax on guns and ammunition during the first weekend of September. The proposal is similar to the tax-free back-to-school holiday weekend Tennessee holds at the end of the summer.

Were ecstatic about it, it would be great for our business, Tri-Cities Gun Depot Co-Owner, Tommy Isaacs told WJHL.

Isaacs even said his shop would reduce prices for what hes calling back to school for hunters.

Nancy Fischman, Chair of the Washington County Democratic Party would like to see lawmakers focus on other issues.

Why doesnt he propose a sales tax holiday for groceries? You have to eat but you dont have to buy a gun, Fischman tells WJHL.

If the Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday, were passed - it would take effect this September, joining similar Second Amendment Sales Tax Holidays in Louisiana and Mississippi.

Thank you for supporting MRCTV! As a tax-deductible, charitable organization, we rely on the support of our readers to keep us running!Keep MRCTV going with your gift here!

Read the original post:
Tenn. Considers 'Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday' - MRCTV (blog)

In Connecticut, Governor Malloy is moving to increase the cost of a firearms permit. The New Haven Register reports:

Gun owners will see huge increases in permit fees that would raise millions of dollars to help the state combat its two-year, $3.6 billion deficit.

As part of his budget, Malloy is proposing to increase the state portion of the pistol permit fee from $70 to $300. He also is proposing the cost of the initial 5-year pistol permit fee from $140 to $370.

The increase in fees for gun owners will bring in another $9 million to the state annually, according to the governors budget estimates.

Additionally, Malloy is proposing to increase background check fees from its current $50 to $75.

If he is successful, that will set the cost of a first-time gun permit at $445, and the cost of renewal at $300.

Although I strongly disagree with it, I understand the intellectual case in favor of pistol permits per se especially in states such as Connecticut, where a permit acts as a one-time permission slip to do everything associated with guns (buy, own, carry, etc.). In the view of the gun-control movement, the permitting system serves to weed out those who are disqualified from ownership, as well as to ensure that the police know who is carrying and who is not. Because the system is open to abuse, leads to situations such as Carol Bownes, and seems to have no positive effect in comparison with similar states that dont issue permits (see Vermont and Maine), I strongly oppose it. But I can at least acknowledge the argument. Guns are dangerous weapons. Its not inherently unreasonable to want some regulation, nor, if a permitting system is to exist, to ask users to cover their costs.

I cannot, however, understand the argument in favor of high fees for pistol permits.If the case for permits is to distinguish between the law-abiding and the criminal, the case for high fees is to distinguish between the rich and the poor. In and of itself, that is disgusting. But applied to a constitutionally enumerated right that has been routinely recognized as such by the Supreme Court? Thats pitchfork time. And to come from the Democratic party, which views itself as being on the side of the poor, and which is institutionally opposed to voter identification laws on the grounds that one should not have to pay or be inconvenienced in order to vote? Thats just too much. (Why isnt this a poll tax or Jim Crow? And you cant answer, because I choose not to accept that the Second Amendment exists.)I understand that Governor Malloy doesnt like guns. But I also dont care. The law is the law. He doesnt get to edit the Bill of Rights.

The best case that can be made is that Malloy is trying to balance the budget on the backs of those whose behavior he dislikes. In a vacuum, this would be unpleasant. But when the behavior in question is legally protected, it is an outrage. Make no mistake: This isnt about covering user costs;its not about safety; and its not about Newtown. Its about astate government being willing to restrict a core individual rightbecause it happens to dislike its scope. I can only hope that the state Senate now split evenly between Democrats and Republicans puts the kibosh on the idea post haste.

Link:
Connecticut Moves to Restrict the Second Amendment to Rich People - National Review

Under the propsoal, the 1st weekend of September would be called the Second Amendment Sales Tax holiday.

Andrew Weil , WBIR 11:44 PM. EST February 09, 2017

Rows of guns for sale in showcase of retail store with application on counter (Photo: wingedwolf, wingedwolf)

NASHVILLE - An East Tennessee lawmaker wants there to be an annual tax-free weekend geared toward gun owners.

The bill, filed by Rep. Dennis Powers, R-Jacksboro, would establish the "Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday" for the first weekend of September.

The tax holiday would cover firearms and ammunition. Guns covered by the tax discount would include shotguns, rifles, pistols, revolvers, BB guns, and Muzzleloaders, according to the bill's text.

Tennessee already features an annual tax-free weekend at the end of summer, but that's geared specifically toward back-to-school shopping.

Last year, Louisiana and Mississippi each hosted a Second Amendment sales tax holiday weekend.

If approved, Tennessee's first "Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday" would be in 2017.

( 2017 WBIR)

View original post here:
Tennessee lawmaker proposes tax-free weekend for guns - WBIR.com