Category Archives: Second Amendment

07-08-2012 19:08 What exactly does the Second Amendment say and what is the historical context behind it? The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down. Support The Young Turks by Subscribing Like Us on Facebook: Follow Us on Twitter: Buy TYT Merch: Find out how to watch The Young Turks on Current by clicking here:

Link:
Second Amendment History - Video

Inspired by the shooting in a Colorado movie theater, which resulted in the deaths of 12 people and injured more than 50, columnist David Kolb took on the Second Amendment this week. More than 300 people commented on his column.

A gun owner himself, Kolb lamented the violent future the Second Amendment ensures in the column, "The future looks violent with the Second Amendment."

Kolb wrote:

As such, our nation is condemned to suffer the next outrage in which a deranged personality with a lunatic grudge decides to accumulate an arsenal that would embarrass a small police department and go hunting for humans.

This is America.

This is the way it is.

This is the way it will be.

Politically, its impossible to change this bleak future of violent acts.

Here's what MLive and Chronicle readers had to say.

How long would it have taken the Theater Shooter to prepare a chemical weapon or a bomb instead of using guns. These guns were used because they were convenient. This guy was nearly a doctor of science. A bomb would have not presented a problem for this guy. So, he painted up his hair, and did what would garner himself the most press and recognition. He didn't fight with police afterwards. Gave up without incident. Because Mr. Kolb and the rest of the so called journalists made him famous. Perhaps we should outlaw journalists, because without the Kolbs of this world, he would not have had a reason to do what he did.

Here is the original post:
More than 300 comment on David Kolb's column on the Second Amendment

Our Constitution has all but been effectively repealed. The thread by which the survival of our Republic hangs is the single sentence of the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting or sport shooting. It recognizes the right and the duty of the people to keep and bear arms in order to insure the security of our republic.

It is the last resort against tyranny and oppression. Armed citizens are the last line of defense against a foreign invasion or a domestic coup.

Unfortunately, this important amendment has already been significantly diminished with so-called assault weapons bans and other restrictions.

Many people at the state, federal, and international level have been working to outlaw private ownership of guns completely. They have used a long-term strategy to take away this critical right one piece at a time, and we cannot let it continue. If we abandon the Second Amendment, America will most likely descend into the worst police state in history.

The one thing people should fear more than gangs, serial killers, mass murderers, and other violent criminals, is an out-of-control government of monumental proportions, with no one who possesses the means to resist it.

NATHAN SWEEM

Merced

View post:
NATHAN SWEEM: If you want to own a gun, buy it while you still can

31-07-2012 14:49

Read the original post:
First vs Second Amendment - Video

GULFPORT -- South Mississippi congressional candidate Ron Williams said mayors vowing to block new Chick-fil-A restaurants because the company's president opposes gay marriage "need to be introduced to the Second Amendment ASAP."

Williams, a Libertarian candidate for the U.S. House District 4 seat, made that and other statements in a letter to the editor to the Sun Herald. But asked about the letter, he said his comments were "hyperbole, non clarity," and that "I don't want anybody to go shoot anybody, but I want people to understand what a slippery slope we can be on and what the purpose of the Second Amendment is."

His letter was in response to statements by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanual and Boston Mayor Tom Menino advising Chick-fil-A not to seek new franchises in their cities over CEO Dan Cathy's public opposition to gay marriage. San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee and Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl have made similar statements about potentially blocking the restaurant.

Williams said this is an abuse of government power and runs afoul of the First Amendment rights to free speech.

In his letter, Williams said: "Let me make it clear, the CEO is being punished by government officials because he exercised his First Amendment right of free speech. The Constitution is very clear. When government restricts and punishes the people for exercising their First Amendment rights, then we are to default to the Second Amendment (right to keep and bear arms). These two mayors need to be introduced to the Second Amendment ASAP."

Williams also wrote: "The correct response to these mayors would be to send troops or whatever to remove these men from office, by whatever means is necessary."

In the 2010 midterm elections, TEA Party-backed Republican candidate Sharron Angle, who unsuccessfully challenged Democratic U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, caused a stir with similar comments about the Second Amendment. She said that people were "looking toward Second Amendment remedies" over their displeasure with Congress and floated the possibility of armed insurrection if "Congress keeps going the way it is."

Williams said his letter was meant to remind people that "some things are worth fighting for, if they cannot be remedied by any other measure."

"I'm not saying anybody should go shoot these mayors," Williams said. "But politicians need to be reminded, our founding fathers were quite clear that it's quite possible for our country to fall back into the hands of tyranny ... I'm a thou-shalt-not-kill kind of guy, but these guys should be reminded of the Second Amendment ... I guess the word reminded would have been better (in the letter) ... I needed a thesaurus beside me."

Williams, of Moss Point, faces incumbent Republican Rep. Steven Palazzo, Democrat Michael Herrington of Hattiesburg and Reform candidate Robert W. Claunch of Diamondhead in the Nov. 6 general election.

Originally posted here:
Mississippi Congressional candidate says Chicago and Boston mayors blocking Chick-fil-A "need to be introduced to the ...

THE CAPITAL, TALLAHASSEE, July 31, 2012 -

Brandon Larrabee, The News Service of Florida

Gov. Rick Scott announced Monday that the state will appeal a ruling barring the state from enforcing the "docs vs. glocks" law, continuing the court battle over the line between patients' rights under the Second Amendment and doctors' rights under the First.

"This law was carefully crafted to respect the First Amendment while ensuring a patients constitutional right to own or possess a firearm without discrimination," Scott said in a brief statement released by his office. "I signed this legislation into law because I believe it is constitutional and I will continue to defend it."

The appeal challenges a federal court's ruling blocking enforcement of provisions of the law that would restrict doctors and other medical providers from asking questions about gun ownership during medical visits.

U.S. District Court Judge Marcia Cooke ruled earlier this month that the 2011 law, known formally as the Firearm Owners' Privacy Act, was built largely on anecdotal evidence and that lawmakers couldn't prove that Second Amendment rights would be jeopardized or that patients with guns might face discrimination.

"The state's arguments rest on a legislative illusion," Cooke wrote.

Backed by the National Rifle Association and the United Sportsmen of Florida, the bill (HB 155) was approved by lawmakers and signed by the Gov. Rick Scott in 2011. The bill easily passed both chambers along largely party line votes of 88-30 in the House and 27-10 in the Senate.

Supporters argued that doctors might refuse to treat patients who had guns in their homes or that patients who declined to answer the question might be turned away. They also raised the possibility that patients' privacy rights might be violated if their gun ownership were listed in medical records.

But doctors countered that knowing what is in a patient's home particularly a child's gives them an opportunity to advise their patients on how to stay safe.

Follow this link:
State Will Appeal 'Docs vs. Glocks' Ruling

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Sunday the Second Amendment leaves open the possibility of gun-control legislation, adding to what has become a slow-boiling debate on the issue since the Colorado movie theater massacre earlier this month.

Scalia, one of the high courts most conservative justices, said on Fox News Sunday that the majority opinion in the landmark 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller stated the extent of gun ownership will have to be decided in future cases.

Well see, he said.

Scalias comments follow the July 20 massacre at the Aurora, Colo., movie theater in which the alleged gunman, with the help of a semi-automatic weapon and an ammunition clip that could hold as many as 100 rounds, killed 12 and wounded 59 others.

His comments also follow those of lawmakers who have called for tougher gun-related laws in the wake of the shootings most recently New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg and New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, Democrats who said Sunday they will introduce legislation this week to make it harder for criminals to anonymously stockpile ammunition through the Internet, as was done before the recent tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado.

They are scheduled to announce the bill to the public Monday outside City Hall in New York City.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a Republican turned independent, has been among the most vocal on the issue since the mass shooting.

On Friday, Bloomberg in an editorial for his Bloomberg News, suggested the problem in Washington is that lawmakers do not want to vote for tougher gun laws out of fear of retribution from the powerful National Rifle Association.

The editorial was titled How to Break NRAs Grip on Politics and suggested the political impact of the group might be exaggerated.

In Congress, the NRA threatens lawmakers who fail to do its ideological bidding, although its record in defeating candidates is much more myth than reality, the editorial stated.

Original post:
Justice Scalia opens door for gun-control legislation

GRAND RAPIDS, MI A Hillsdale man says the government has violated his Second Amendment rights by prohibiting him from obtaining a firearm because of a three-decades-old involuntary commitment to a psychiatric hospital.

Clifford Tyler, who says his mental-health issue was only temporary, has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Grand Rapids against local, state and federal agencies alleging that they are violating his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

As a consequence of this overbroad ban, sane, trustworthy, competent individuals that are not a threat to themselves or others and are not in any way mentally ill are forever prohibited from exercising their Second Amendment rights by the bare fact of a one-time involuntary commitment without consideration of individual present circumstances, Grand Rapids attorney Lucas McCarthy wrote in the complaint.

Tyler, 70, was involuntarily hospitalized on Jan. 2, 1986, over concerns he might commit suicide in response to an emotionally devastating divorce, McCarthy wrote.

Recent psychiatric evaluations showed that Tyler, who has no criminal record, isnt a risk to himself or others, and has no substance-abuse issues. The examination, including statements of his physician, showed no evidence of mental illness, records showed.

The evaluation noted that records of the 1986 hospitalization at now-closed Ypsilanti State Hospital no longer exist, and that there were few mental-health services available at the time in the rural area other than hospitalization.

Tyler filed the lawsuit after he tried to buy a firearm and obtain a concealed-pistol license. He enjoys shooting pistols competitively, and has always had firearms, reports said.

The Hillsdale County Sheriffs Department said he was prohibited from obtaining a firearm, the lawsuit said.

The Sheriffs Department provided Tyler a pamphlet, Guide for Appealing a Firearm Transfer Denial, which said the National Instant Criminal Background Check System showed this criteria prevented his obtaining a gun: Persons adjudicated as a mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle their own affairs, court records showed.

Tyler then provided additional information about his situation to the FBI, which responded by confirming he was federally prohibited from owning a firearm, the lawsuit said.

See the article here:
Second Amendment rights violated over long past mental-health issue, Hillsdale man says

Re "Second Amendment has limits" (Letters, July 26); I believe in the Second Amendment, yet even as a longtime gun owner I feel that many people today should never own a gun and this is why. Gun ownership belongs to responsible and accountable citizens.

Let's be honest, our society has slipped badly in the last 50 years. The lack of integrity and common sense has gutted the public's trust. I doubt our forefathers could have envisioned the decay we live with today, but the Constitution tells me they knew we would have our hands full.

The state of this country's mental health is the issue here. The Second Amendment and the NRA protects the rights of folks who still have their feet on the ground. Do something respectful today, I would find that refreshing.

-- W.S. Westlake, Sacramento

Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

What You Should Know About Comments on Sacbee.com

Sacbee.com is happy to provide a forum for reader interaction, discussion, feedback and reaction to our stories. However, we reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments or ban users who can't play nice. (See our full terms of service here.)

Here are some rules of the road:

Keep your comments civil. Don't insult one another or the subjects of our articles. If you think a comment violates our guidelines click the "Report Abuse" link to notify the moderators. Responding to the comment will only encourage bad behavior.

Don't use profanities, vulgarities or hate speech. This is a general interest news site. Sometimes, there are children present. Don't say anything in a way you wouldn't want your own child to hear.

Continued here:
Is responsible gun ownership possible in today's America?

And, since 9/11, no amendment has been more equal than the Second Amendment.

Reuters

As the political debate about gun violence finally sounds out across the country in the wake of last week's Colorado theater massacre, as President Barack Obama and presumptiveRepublican nominee Mitt Romney begin to stake out their positions, I keep coming back in my mind to the ways in which America has treated gun rights differently from other rights since September 11, 2001. On paper, all constitutional amendments may be equal. But in practice, some amendments are more equal than others. And no amendment has been more equal in the past 11 years than the Second Amendment.

There is a financial component to this, expressed in the vast difference we spend to counter the threat of terrorism as opposed to the threat of gun violence. There is a practical component to it: in the wake of last week's shooting, theDenver Post reported that local gun sales were up 41 percent and that firearms instructors were seeing more requests for training for concealed-carry permits. And then there is the legal component -- the constitutional contrast, you could say -- expressed in how our Bill of Rights has been molded since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.

Since the terror attacks nearly 11 years ago -- a period in which 14 Americans were killed domestically by Islamic extremists and approximately 334,000 Americans were killed domestically by gun violence -- there have been significant changes in the way the Bill of Rights has been interpreted by government. In virtually every one of those instances -- I can't name an exception, can you? -- the guarantees of individual liberty and freedom contained in the first ten amendments to the Constitution have been narrowed or undermined in the name of safety and national security.

From the TSA to drones to warrantless domestic surveillance, from water-boarding to secret prisons to law enforcement officials having access to your online accounts, the Bill of Rights has been winnowed since September 2001 as Americans have consented to re-shift the balance between security and liberty, between safety and privacy. Name a relevant amendment and some expert somewhere will tell you how all three branches of government have sought to expand State power over individual conduct (or even, as we saw in some of the hokier terror conspiracy cases, over individual thought).

Except for the Second Amendment. Bucking the trend, it has been a fabulous decade for the Second Amendment and those who cherish it. Since September 2001, the United States Supreme Court has twice (in Heller in 2008 and in McDonald in 2009) endorsed the concept that the Second Amendment contains an individual right to bear arms. In 2003, Congress attached to funding legislation the Tiahrt Amendment, a rider designed to restrict the use of federal gun-trace information. And in 2004, the federal ban on assault weapons was allowed to expired.

Today, despite statistics that tell us that approximately 33,000 Americans are killed each year by gun violence, and despite statistics that reveal that states with tougher gun restrictions have lower body counts from such violence, the Second Amendment is more broadly interpreted than it has ever before been. By contrast, in the name of fighting the war on terror, here is how the past 11 years have treated the other nine amendments that comprise the original Bill of Rights:

The First Amendment.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

As First Amendment Center scholar David Hudson, Jr. has pointed out, the weighty USA Patriot Act "directly implicated First Amendment freedoms." Hudson offered this analysis last year on Patriot Act provisions which enable government officials to obtain library records, health-care records, and business records. Meanwhile, in 2010 the Supreme Court, in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, endorsed the constitutionality of the Patriot Act's "material support" provision, which criminalizes a broad range of associative conduct. More recently, President Obama's National Defense Authorization Act has implicated the first amendment rights of journalists.

See the original post here:
Some Constitutional Amendments Are More Equal Than Others