Category Archives: Second Amendment

During Tuesday nights presidential debate, President Barack Obama told the American public that he has always been, and will continue to be, a staunch defender of the Second Amendment, but one major player isnt biting: The National Rifle Association,

This election has increased the relevance of Second Amendment rights, Chris Cox, chief lobbyist for the NRA, told The Daily Caller. These rights are not just a tradition they are part of the foundation of a free society.

The NRA, which endorsed Republican nominee Mitt Romney last week, is adamant that Romney is the better advocate for Second Amendment rights. As a case in point, during the Tuesday debate, the Republican said that he is not in favor of new laws or regulations banning guns, while Obama came out in favor of new semi-automatic and handgun bans.

Cox and others at the NRA believe that the problem with gun bans is that they take guns out of law-abiding citizens who seek protection against criminal.

The organization released an ad on Tuesday called Defeat Obama and Defend Freedom, which asserts that Obama does not support gun owners or their rights, and points out that hes nominated two Supreme Court justices who have spent decades voting against gun rights and self-defense rights.

WATCH:

Obama has an history of supporting gun control. In 2009, he called for the Senate to ratify the CIFTA treaty, which, if passed, would have allowed other countries to track U.S. firearms. After meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, he also pushed pushed to reinstate the U.S. ban on assault rifles.

In a 2008 primary interview, Obama was asked, You said recently, I have no intention of taking away folks guns. But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and youve said that its constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?

Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country, Obama replied. I think its important for us to recognize that weve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and peoples traditions.

And in 1996, Obama filled out an Independent Voters of Illinois questionnaire he has recently distanced himself from, checking that he favors a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns and assault weapons, as well as mandatory waiting periods and background checks.

Read the original here:
NRA takes aim at Obama’s re-election

Gun control, assault weapons, and the Second Amendment all surfaced in the lively second presidential debate. Unfortunately for devotees of the firearm issue, fireworks were also exploding on Libya, immigration, energy, binders of women, and the size of the candidates respective retirement plans.

Lets go back and take a look at the gun exchange, because, like the rest of the debate, it was pretty darned interesting.A town hall attendee named Nina Gonzalez got things rolling with an admirably concise question. (You can find the complete transcript, courtesy of Politico, here.)

President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals, Gonzalez asked. What has your administration done or planned to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?

The simplest answer would have been, Nothing. Or perhaps, Nothing beyond enforcing existing criminal and civil laws as I found them when I took office. Obama has signed no new federal gun control legislation of any significance, much to the despair of a gun-control movement that has been politically marginalized over the past dozen years. (Ive addressed that marginalization and its causeshere and here.)

Obama did not give the simplest answer. Instead he began this way:

Were a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment. Weve got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves.

This is the same answer that Mitt Romney could have offered. For that matter, it is the same answer that Wayne LaPierre, the top gun at the National Rifle Association, might have volunteered. Its an indisputable statement about the deep-seated American attachment to firearms. It does not say anything about AK-47s in the hands of criminals. What it does reveal is Obamas determination to steer clear of the gun issue at all costs. He and most other Democrats in Washington long ago decided that popular support for gun ownership and the political acumen of the NRA make this issue a loser. In an era of declining gun homicide rates, there simply is no widespread demand among voters for stiffened federal gun control. This reality is unaffected by the periodic and horrific mass shootings in movie theaters or shopping malls.

Obama continued his answer with an irrelevant anecdote about meeting one of the survivors of the July, 2012, multiplex massacre in Aurora, Colo. Then he said this:

I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters dont belong on our streets. And so what Im trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my hometown of Chicago, theres an awful lot of violence and theyre not using AK-47s. Theyre using cheap handguns.

The president thus made a vague commitment to think about, maybe, one day, talking about a renewed assault weapons ban. If I were a gun control activist, I would not hold my breath. In a second Obama administration, the White House might say that an assault weapons ban would be nice in theory. Obamas tepid remark, however, did not sound like a promise that hed make it a priority.

Read the original:
The Obama-Romney 'Assault Weapons' Duel

Leesville, La. -- The second amendment to be voted on the Nov. 6 general ballot is an amendment dealing with strict scrutiny for gun laws. The amendment states whether someone "supports an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Louisiana to provide that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and any restriction of that right requires the highest standard of review by a court?" The three levels of law review include rational basis, intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny, with rational baas being the lowest and most common standard, according to the Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana (PAR). Strict scrutiny is reserved for cases about the validity of laws that may infringe on an individual's fundamental rights. Traditionally, Louisiana has been recognized as having some of the least restrictive gun laws in the state because it is an "open carry" state. Under strict scrutiny, a law must pass three tests in order to be considered valid. First, the government must first prove that it has a compelling interest that justifies the passage of the law; second, the law may not be overly broad in its reach; and third, the law must also be the least restrictive means of achieving the state's compelling interest. A vote for the amendment, according to PAR, would require that any laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms be subject to the highest level of judicial review, known as strict scrutiny. Voting for the amendment would also delete a line in the constitution that says the right to keep and bear arms shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons. A "no" vote would retain the existing language in the constitution, which affirms that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged but does to require strict scrutiny of arms laws and expressly allows the Legislature to regulate concealed weapons. Supporters of the amendment say that this amendment would give Louisiana the strongest protection of guns rights in the nation. In addition, the change would protect the Second Amendment rights of residents in the future. Those who oppose the amendment say that if passed, the amendment could lead to some laws used to help prosecute criminals could be overturned, and any of the statutes regarding the possession and carrying of guns could be affected.

View original post here:
Amendment two: Strict scrutiny review for gun laws

There is one candidate running for the 32nd state Senate District who will stand up for our Second Amendment rights, and thats Bill Feehan.

Feehan spoke up as a La Crosse County Supervisor when the board tried to ban law-abiding people from carrying guns into the public buildings. I want to thank Feehan for calling for a public hearing and opposing that ban.

Feehan has been a hunter and fisherman his whole life, and he has been endorsed by the National Rifle Association with an A rating. Feehan also has been endorsed by the United Sportsmen of Wisconsin.

Feehan supports concealed carry, which allows law-abiding people to exercise their most basic right to self-defense. Illinois is the only state left that doesnt have a similar law.

Feehan also supports the Castle Doctrine, a law that allows people to defend their home and family and not fear being prosecuted for it. Feehans positions stand is in stark contrast with those of his opponent.

We have a strong outdoors tradition in the Coulee Region, and protecting our Second Amendment rights is important. I applaud Feehan for standing strong for sensible rules and for being a voice for outdoorsmen. Thats why I encourage everyone to vote Feehan for state Senate.

Link:
LETTER: Feehan is the clear choice for gun owners

FARGO The North Dakota U.S. House race has attracted dueling endorsements from the pro-gun lobby.

Pam Gulleson, the Democratic candidate, was recently endorsed by the National Rifle Association.

Meanwhile, Republican Kevin Cramer has picked up the backing of the Gun Owners of America, a more hard-line group on Second Amendment issues.

Gulleson, who from 1993 to 2009 represented District 26 in the state House, received an A rating for her voting record and stance on gun-rights and Second Amendment issues, the NRAs Political Victory Fund website states.

Public Service Commission member Cramer received an AQ rating from the NRA.

AQ means a candidate is recognized as pro-gun according to an NRA-PVF survey. But, it also indicates the group believes the candidate doesnt have a voting record on Second Amendment issues.

Cramers website touts the endorsement by the Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund.

GOA-PVF gave Gulleson no rating and said on its website that she is careful to conceal her views on gun rights and did not answer their questionnaire.

GOA regularly differs with the NRA on endorsements and politician ratings, accusing the older group of being too soft on Second Amendment issues.

The NRA is backing Republican Senate candidate U.S. Rep. Rick Berg, giving him an A rating, while tagging his Democratic opponent Heidi Heitkamp with an AQ rating.

Excerpt from:
Gun groups split North Dakota political loyalties

Most of us remember from high school U.S. history that the Second Amendment protects Americans right to bear arms. Apparently our Congressmen have forgotten that lesson since their time in school. Recently there have been many gun-related deaths around the nation which have brought our Second Amendment right into questioning. How can we be safe with guns everywhere? Surely if we take away everyones right to have a gun wed be much safer, right? Wrong.

Anyone who walks on campus, or into a bank or movie theater sees the signs that say no guns permitted, not even concealed carry. Surely everyday citizens who see these signs will abide by them, but why are those signs up in the first place? Banks have been robbed since they were first established. Schools filled with innocent children are no place for guns, especially after incidents like the 1999 shooting at Columbine. And after James Holmes opened fire in Aurora, Colorado during the premiere of the Batman film, having gun laws in all these places makes is just common sense, right?

Consider why these laws are implemented and who they truly affect. The Crime Control Act of 1990 was passed to create gun-free school zones. When looking at the purpose of these gun laws, they look like great ideas, but what good are they? These laws are put into place to stop crimes right? But who commits crimes? Criminals! Since when did they start following the law? These laws prohibit average citizens from being able to protect themselves in these types of environments.

Many thieves are for gun control because that increases the chance that whomever they are about to rob is unarmed. These laws stop typical citizens from protecting themselves but do not affect criminals at all. They are already planning on breaking the law when they decide to go into these schools, banks and theaters. In fact, this helps them choose their targets. How many times have you heard of someone robbing or shooting up a gun store in the middle of the day?

Keeping citizens prepared for anything is the best form of protection. If anyone in that theater in Aurora had a gun, I believe that Holmes would have gotten fewer shots off and it would have saved lives. There are and will always be bad people in the world and its our right to be able to defend ourselves from them at any given time. The average response time for a high priority emergency call is just over 10 minutes, where a .357 magnum fires at 1400 feet per second. Id rather have my safety in my own hands than in the hands of someone Ive never met who wont be right at my side the second violence erupts. How can we as Americans say we are free when we arent even free to protect ourselves?

See original here:
The war on guns

Handguns are for sale at Impact Guns in Ogden on Wednesday, July 25, 2012.

Laura Seitz, Deseret News

Enlarge photo

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is limited. Government may impose time, place and manner restrictions on our rights of free speech; it may limit our free exercise of religion provided it has a compelling interest and the limit is narrowly tailored; the press may be denied access to information in certain circumstances.

Meanwhile, the Utah Legislature continues to push for unlimited gun rights, claiming that these are "Second Amendment rights." Last session, Rep. Paul Ray, R-Clearfield, promoted a bill that would have the effect of telling individuals not to be alarmed when they see someone walking around their neighborhoods, churches, grocery stores or just about anywhere else with a visible firearm including an assault weapon.

Among the cursory reasons provided in support of the bill was the vague assertion that it would protect Second Amendment rights. But asserting a right is constitutional does not make it so. The United States Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment "protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defense." At no time has the Court expanded the Second Amendment to include a right to openly carry a firearm as a fashion accessory.

Ray returns this year to the Legislature's interim committee meetings with yet another bill encouraging anyone over age 17 to strap a handgun on his hip and stroll around the local park to show it off. The bill tacitly concedes carrying a visible firearm is fundamentally threatening by providing that, unless there is additional threatening behavior, the person cannot, for example, be considered a trespasser, asked to leave a college campus or asked to leave a public meeting.

About the only reason legislators have given in support of the bill is a concern that police officers have asked one or two people to explain their decisions to wander public streets with visible weapons. In the versions of the stories provided by legislators in committee hearings, none of the individuals claimed they needed to flaunt their firearms for self-defense (just to be clear, courts have not been keen on the idea that self-defense includes pre-emptive efforts to repel a theoretical attack). Legislators are concerned that overzealous police officers have "persecuted" the gun-toters. Their response to this perceived overzealousness by a very few is to propose legislation forcing the general populace to live in fear. The more rational response would be to give the officers some training addressing the concerns about their behavior.

See the article here:
My view: Utah needs to establish reasonable gun restraints

DESOTO COUNTY, MS -

(WMC-TV) - A newly proposed gun ordinance in DeSoto County has many citizens worried that their second amendment rights will be violated.

Under the proposal, only gun owners with an enhanced conceal and carry permit could bring firearms to DeSoto County parks and greenways.

Now, supervisors want to clear the air and let people know that the ordinance is already a state law that leaders simply want to better enforce.

"There have been some misconceptions from the public about what we are proposing, thinking perhaps we're trying to limit their second amendment rights, trying to take away their gun, nothing could be further from the truth," said DeSoto County Supervisor Mark Gardner.

State law already prohibits guns in public parks, unless owners have the proper permits. Enhanced holders undergo eight hours of special training.

But if the newly proposed ordinance is passed, enforcement of that law will get easier.

"If you're discharging a firearm and don't have a conceal carry permit and you're shooting a sign, local law enforcement can say, Hey, you're violating this ordinance,'" said Board Attorney Jody Neyman.

David Goode and Bud Cummings are members of the National Rifle Association. They had concerns about the proposal until the supervisors cleared the air.

"It just mirrors what's already on the books, it does not affect anyone's ability to carry with the proper permit," said Goode.

Read this article:
Officials clear the air about DeSoto County gun ordinance

Whitehouse hopeful Mitt Romney has received the formal backing of the National Rifle Association. Source: AAP

REPUBLICAN US presidential candidate Mitt Romney announced that he has received the formal backing of the National Rifle Association (NRA).

Romney's campaign made the announcement on Thursday in a press release issued by his campaign office in Boston timed to coincide with a campaign rally in Virginia.

The release quoted Romney as saying he would do everything in his power as president to defend and protect the right of all law-abiding Americans to bear arms.

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution "protects a basic and fundamental individual right to bear arms," said Romney.

"And it is the NRA that protects the Second Amendment."

Romney's running mate, Senator Paul Ryan, is also quoted in the news release, saying the Second Amendment is essential to the functioning of a free society.

"As a lifelong hunter, I am a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights," said Ryan.

"Not only do millions of Americans own firearms, but recreational hunting and shooting adds billions to our economy every year and supports thousands of jobs."

NRA Political Victory Fund chair Chris Cox said it was important to have "a friend of our Second Amendment freedoms and hunting heritage in the White House".

View original post here:
US gun lobby endorses Mitt Romney

The second amendment to the American constitution is subject to conflicting interpretations, says Professor Ryan Hurl. Credit: Bigstock photo

Mass shootings at a Dark Knight Rises screening in Colorado and at a mosque in Wisconsin this past summer reignited the national conversation about gun control in the U.S. Writer Jenny Hallasked Professor Ryan Hurl of political science at the University of Toronto Scarborough to help interpret the second amendment to the American constitution.

We hear a lot about the second amendment, but many Canadians might not know what it actually says. Can you tell us?

The text 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."

What does that mean?

The meaning is not entirely clear and it's subject to contrasting and even conflicting interpretations.

The dominant view today is that the second part of the amendment is most importantthe right of the people to keep and bear arms. On the other hand, you have the first part, about a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.

The question is, what is the relationship between the two parts of the amendment? Does the first clause structure the meaning of the individual right? That's what a lot of the disagreement is about.

Does it matter what the intent was at the time it was written?

Historically, the argument is about the dangers of standing armies, of what we might call a military establishment. For many Americans at the time of the revolution, a permanent army was regarded as a threat to freedom.

See the original post:
Q&A: Guns, politics and the American constitution