Category Archives: Second Amendment

Chicago Police First Deputy Superintendent Alfonsa Wysinger, second from left, speaks at a news...

Since the death of communism in most of the places where it once prevailed, North Korea and Cuba function mainly as educational exhibits for an irrelevant and unsuccessful ideology. When it comes to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, the city of Chicago fills a similar role.

The city is famous for some of the strictest gun laws in the country. In 1982, it approved a near-total ban on handguns. In 1992, it outlawed "assault weapons." Mayors and aldermen never tired of railing against firearms.

In 2008, when the Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., it was clear that Chicago was on what liberals often refer to, in other contexts, as the wrong side of history. But the people in City Hall were either not smart enough or not honest enough to make peace with change. They preferred to emulate the cavalry troops in "The Charge of the Light Brigade," who rallied to the call "Charge for the guns!" despite the certainty of defeat.

In the 2008 verdict, the justices said the Second Amendment upholds an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense. But the city fought a legal challenge to its handgun ban only to lose, predictably, in the Supreme Court.

Besides being a legal and policy setback, it was a loss for taxpayers, who had to pay not only the cost of defending the ordinance but the cost of challenging it. Chicago was obliged to pay $1.4 million to the National Rifle Association, which won the lawsuit.

Did this expensive indignity persuade Mayor Richard M. Daley to abandon the fight? Ha. He pushed through a new ordinance intended to demonize and discourage gun ownership as much as he could get away with which, as became apparent, was not very much.

The measure required gun owners to get at least five hours of training, including one hour at a shooting range. In a novel twist, though, it outlawed "shooting galleries, firearm ranges or any other place where firearms are discharged." The city claimed proper training is vital while hindering residents from getting it.

This section prompted another lawsuit, which argued that the right to own a gun for protection was of limited value if owners had no chance to achieve and maintain proficiency in using one and that they shouldn't have to leave the city to comply with the city's very own rules. A federal appeals court agreed.

Judge Ilana Rovner said, "The ordinance admittedly was designed to make gun ownership as difficult as possible." But she noted pointedly that the Supreme Court has upheld "the Second Amendment right to possess a gun in the home for self-defense and the City must come to terms with that reality."

Go here to read the rest:
Chicago fights gun rights, and loses

Gun advocates, backed by the National Rifle Association and many Republicans, demand a strict adherence to the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by allowing them free access to any weapon of their choice, while gun control proponents often motivated by recurring deadly massacres, fret that too many guns are already in circulation and limitations must be imposed on the availability of such deadly firearms.

Caught in the middle are gun manufacturers (mostly small companies that sell a legal product) and millions of gun owners (the overwhelming majority of whom do not commit violent crimes).The debate over guns indeed represents a facet of the so-called culture war that shows no sign of resolution.

Now, changes in the country's political environment have pushed some gun manufacturers to pack up and move, especially from the northeastern U.S.Over the past year, in the wake of stricter gun control legislation passed by state governments in New York and Connecticut (in response to the horrific mass murder of 26 people, including 20 children, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012), several firearms makers have either threatened to relocate to the South or have actually done so.

In October 2013, Townhall.com reported that American Tactical Imports, or ATI, a Rochester, N.Y.-based importer and distributor of domestic firearms became the third New York gun manufacturer to leave the state partially due to Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomos SAFE Act -- a piece of gun control legislation enacted in January in response to the Sandy Hook massacre.The SAFE legislation severely limits the sale of assault weapons and this year will track sales of ammunition across the state.In November, ATI packed up and moved 700 miles away to sunnier climes (and a more gun-friendly environment) in Summerville, S.C., just outside Charleston.

Guns.com reported that ATI will bring 117 jobs to South Carolina as well as a new $2.7 million investment in Dorchester County, S.C.Moving to the Palmetto State will also enable ATI to enjoy proximity to key shipping routes (i.e., the busy port of Charleston), facilitating product deliveries, particularly from Germany, from where ATI imports many of its products.

This move to South Carolina will help ensure a solid foundation for our company, said Tony DiChario, president of ATI. The people of South Carolina have welcomed ATI with open arms and we are excited about making our new corporate home there.

Of course, South Carolina also provides strong support for the Second Amendment and welcomes new businesses.

South Carolina is a destination for job-creating investments, gushed Republican Governor Nikki Haley while Bobby Hitt, secretary of South Carolina's commerce department, said: Our states business-friendly resources and excellent workforce further underscore what makes South Carolina just right for business,"according to Guns.com.

Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, the state affiliate of the NRA, told the Buffalo News that most of ATI's product line would be banned for sale in New York under terms of the SAFE Act.

ATI believes it is imperative that a firearms importer and manufacturer do business within a state that is friendly to the Second Amendment rights of the people, the company said in a statement.

Read more here:
Southern Exposure: As Gun Sales Surge, Northeast Manufacturers Fleeing For Dixie

Published: Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2014, 9:00p.m. Updated 6 hours ago

Ruling that Chicago's ban on licensed retail gun shops and private firearms transfers is unconstitutional, a federal judge has dealt a stinging, much-needed rebuke to an overreaching city government.

U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang stayed his decision to give Chicago which last year led U.S. cities in homicides time to mull an appeal. But there's no appealing the Second Amendment, which he cited in ruling that Chicago's duty to protect its citizens' safety is outweighed by its obligation to protect their constitutional rights.

It's not the first time that a court has curbed Chicago or Illinois gun-grabbing. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the city's gun ban in 2010. A federal appellate court forced Illinois last holdout among the states to finally allow concealed carry permits last year.

After a federal appellate court struck down the city's gun-range ban in 2012, Chicago used zoning and other regulatory measures to make it difficult for such law-abiding firearms businesses, according to the Chicago Tribune. Besides possibly appealing this latest ruling, the city might try such tactics again.

If it does, Chicago will confirm its anti-gun attitude's underlying tendency: wrongly blaming legal guns, legal firearms businesses and law-abiding gun owners for gun-related violent crime. The latter two should be thankful that this judge and others stand ready to uphold their Second Amendment rights.

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.

See the rest here:
Chicago hope: A welcome gun ruling affirms the Second Amendment

First there was the Second Amendment Preservation Act, a bill floated in a number of conservative statehouses in recent months that would make it a crime for U.S. government officials to enforce federal gun laws within their state boundaries.

Now comes the Fourth Amendment Protection Act.

Its the name of a ripped-from-the-headlines bill introduced by state lawmakers in California on Monday.

It would ban state agencies and officials from helping the federal government collect electronic data and metadata on Americans without a targeted warrant. And it would prohibit state and local law enforcement authorities from using such data in their investigations and prosecutions.

Lawmakers in Arizona and Oklahoma are drafting similar measures all of them based on model bill language crafted by the Los Angeles-based Tenth Amendment Center, the same states rights advocacy group that also spearheaded the Second Amendment protection lobbying campaign.

In a lively-worded statement, Sen. Ted Lieu, a Democrat from Redondo Beach who sponsored the bill, described it as an essential guard against privacy abuses, decrying the National Security Agencys spy programs as a direct threat to our liberty and freedom.

The NSA believes its data collection to be legal and is defending the agencys surveillance programs in pending lawsuits across the country.

Its not clear how the measure would actually intersect with federal spy programs.

A statement from Mr. Lieus office announcing the bill says: To collect data on Californians, the NSA sometimes relies upon services provided by the state and/or private entities that provide services on behalf of the state.

The California bill doesnt specify any penalties for violations by state officials. A spokesman for Mr. Lieu called the bill a starting point.

Follow this link:
California, Other States, Weighing Anti-NSA Bills

Chicago'sbanon the sale and transfer of firearms was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge, saying that while the government has a duty to protect its citizens, it's also obligated to protect constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

A federal judge on Monday overturnedChicago'sbanon the sale and transfer of firearms, ruling that the city's ordinances aimed at reducinggunviolence are unconstitutional.

Subscribe Today to the Monitor

Click Here for your FREE 30 DAYS of The Christian Science Monitor Weekly Digital Edition

US District Judge Edmond E. Chang said in his ruling that while the government has a duty to protect its citizens, it's also obligated to protect constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. However, Chang said he would temporarily stay the effects of his ruling, meaning the ordinances can stand while the city decides whether to appeal.

The decision is just the latest to attack what were some of the toughest gun-control laws in the nation. In 2010, the US Supreme Court struck downChicago'slong-standinggunban. And last year, Illinois legislators were forced by a federal appeals court to adopt a law allowing residents to carry concealed weapons in Illinois, the only state that stillbannedthe practice. The resulting state law largely stripped city and officials of surrounding Cook County of their authority to regulateguns, which especially irked officials inChicago, where residents had to apply for concealed-carry permits through the police chief.

National Rifle Association lobbyist Todd Vandermyde applauded Chang's decision, saying the fact a federal judge appointed by President Barack Obama "ruled in favor of the Second Amendment, shows how out of step and outrageousChicago'sordinances really are."

Roderick Drew, a spokesman forChicago'slaw department, said Mayor Rahm Emanuel disagrees with Chang's ruling and has instructed the city's lawyer to consider options to regulategunsales.

"Every yearChicagopolice recover more illegalgunsthan officers in any city in the country, a factor of lax federal laws as well as lax laws in Illinois and surrounding states related to straw purchasing and the transfer ofguns," Drew said. "We need strongergunsafety laws, not increased access to firearms within the city."

Chang's ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers and threeChicagoresidents. The judge notedChicago'sbancovers not only federally licensed firearms dealers, but also gifts among family members, all in the name of reducinggunviolence.

See original here:
Chicago's ban on gun sales violates the Second Amendment, rules federal judge

Should the second amendment be changed?

By: FlipTheAngryAsian

See original here:
Should the second amendment be changed? - Video

Second Amendment: The right to bear armsWhat is the Second Amendment?There are two principle versions of the Second Amendment: one version was passed by Congress, while the other is found in the copies distributed to each individual state and later ratified by themAs passed by the Congress: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.As ratified by the 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.The Second Amendment Defined:The Second Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.Stipulations of the 2nd Amendment:The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual to keep and bear firearms.The right to arm oneself is viewed as a personal liberty to deter undemocratic or oppressive governing bodies from forming and to repel impending invasions. Furthermore, the right to bear arms was instituted within the Bill of Rights to suppress insurrection, participate and uphold the law, enable the citizens of the United States to organize a militia, and to facilitate the natural right to self-defense.The Second Amendment was developed as a result of the tyrannous rule of the British parliament. Colonists were often oppressed and forced to pay unjust taxes at the hand of the unruly parliament. As a result, the American people yearned for an Amendment that would guarantee them the right to bear arms and protect themselves against similar situations. The Second Amendment was drafted to provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States through the ability to raise and support militias.Court Cases Tied into the Second AmendmentIn District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to possess a firearm to use for traditionally lawful purposes, such as defending oneself within their home or on their property. The court case ruled that the Amendment was not connected to service in a militia.ControversyThe gun debate in the United States widely revolves around the intended interpretation of the Second Amendment. Those who support gun rights claim that the founding fathers developed and subsequently ratified the Second Amendment to guarantee the individuals right to keep and bear arms. Those who want more stringent gun laws feel that the founding fathers directed this Amendment solely to the formation of militias and are thus, at least by theory, archaic.State Timeline for Ratification of the Bill of RightsNew Jersey:November 20, 1789; rejected article IIMaryland:December 19, 1789; approved allNorth Carolina:December 22, 1789; approved allSouth Carolina: January 19, 1790; approved allNew Hampshire: January 25, 1790; rejected article IIDelaware: January 28, 1790; rejected article INew York: February 27, 1790; rejected article IIPennsylvania: March 10, 1790; rejected article IIRhode Island: June 7, 1790; rejected article IIVermont: November 3, 1791; approved allVirginia: December 15, 1791; approved all

Second Amendment: The right to bear arms What is the Second Amendment? There are two principle versions of the Second Amendment: one version was passed by Congress, while the other is found in the copies distributed to each individual state and later ratified by them

As passed by the Congress: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.

As ratified by the 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.

The Second Amendment Defined:

The Second Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.

The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.

Stipulations of the 2nd Amendment:

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual to keep and bear firearms.

The right to arm oneself is viewed as a personal liberty to deter undemocratic or oppressive governing bodies from forming and to repel impending invasions. Furthermore, the right to bear arms was instituted within the Bill of Rights to suppress insurrection, participate and uphold the law, enable the citizens of the United States to organize a militia, and to facilitate the natural right to self-defense.

Read more:
2nd Amendment - Constitution- Constitution Law, US ...

In 1776, America's Founders came together in Philadelphia to draw up a "Declaration of Independence," ending political ties to Great Britain. Written by Thomas Jefferson, it is the fundamental statement of people`s rights and what government is and from what source it derives its powers:

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.

The Founders were declaring that we are all equal, and that we are defined by rights that we are born with, not given to us by government. Among those rights is the right to pursue happiness--to live our lives as we think best, as long as we respect the right of all other individuals to do the same. The Founders also declared that governments are created by people to secure their rights. Whatever powers government has are not "just" unless they come from us, the people. Read more

Read the original here:
NRA-ILA | Second Amendment

Bryan Crosswhite sits at an office desk in his D.C. apartment Wednesday. He says registration notices for the Second Amendment stickers have been coming in more than once per minute. (WTOP/Andrew Mollenbeck)

WASHINGTON - Businesses across the country are ready to stick 'em up in the name of gun rights, a window sticker that is.

A sticker declaring support for the Second Amendment has become the must-have item for like-minded shop owners across the country. And it's the brainchild of a Leesburg restaurant owner.

The seemingly-insatiable demand to sign up for the sticker highlights a political debate that is far from resolution. And interest for the stickers has exploded since The Washington Times published a story mentioning the sticker earlier this week.

Bryan Crosswhite, owner of Leesburg's The Cajun Experience restaurant, which is known for its Open Carry Wednesdays, founded the website in response to questions from his customers.

"A lot of patrons come in and ask us what other businesses in the area support the second amendment," he says. "We really didn't have an answer for them."

On Dec. 27, 2013, he launched the online database for businesses to register as gun rights supporters and receive a decal to display their support of the second amendment.

The idea took off.

"This has gone way farther than we ever imagined," Crosswhite says, pointing to thousands of completed registrations in the first few days.

"We're actually talking to other organizations to help us figure out the direction we're going to take."

See the rest here:
The fire power of a sticker: Businesses jump to declare support for gun rights

GTA Chinatown Wars - Walkthrough - Random Character - Tommy - Second Amendment (First Mission)714

By: lahomazabik692g41740

Continued here:
GTA Chinatown Wars - Walkthrough - Random Character - Tommy - Second Amendment (First Mission)714 - Video