Category Archives: Second Amendment

04-07-2012 13:06 Really amazing gun, worth getting perm.

See the original post here:
The Second Amendment Review - Elite Co. EP. #7 [Contest Closed] - Video

05-07-2012 14:05 Really good gun highly recommended. 4 hit kill with 35 in the clip.

View original post here:
Combat Arms Second Amendment Gameplay - Video

BOIS D'ARC, Mo - While most spent the last couple of days celebrating America's freedoms; nearly 100 4-H kids recently exercised their Second Amendment rights in an annual shooting competition.

But this wasn't just about learning how to handle a firearm, the kids learn all kinds of life lessons in 4-H. "They're doing things that we have done throughout our history, throughout our lives; the ones down here are shooting archery, we have kids shooting air rifles, small bore rifles, shotguns, and they're learning life skills, they're learning responsibilities, things like that and it's things they'll carry on for the rest of their lives," says event coordinator Parish Witt.

16 year old Austin Witt has been in 4-H for eight years. "In eight years I've participated in everything from shooting sports to horse showing to cow showing; I've participated in mechanics, woodworking, photography," says Austin Witt.

He's been shooting guns even longer. "Since I was tall enough to hold one," says Austin.

To him, it's more than a hobby, "It's a skill that's evolved, to take you to the level you need to be in this competition," says Austin, and a skill he enjoys sharing with others. "I get to see all the youth that are getting involved in the organization," says Austin.

Youth like Clayton Winslow. "I like the shotgun quite a bit; the archery is pretty fun too; it's just a lot of fun, shooting clay pigeons, see who's the better shot," says Winslow.

Clayton may see whose aim is the truest, but Austin sees something more. "I get to see that the program isn't dying, the program is growing more and more every year," says Austin.

Wednesday's competition was a district qualifier; from there shooters go on to state competition, which for shotguns, is in August. The rest of the shooting sports state competition is in September.

To learn more about local 4-H programs contact your county's University of Missouri Extension office or click here to visit the University of Missouri Extension website.

See the article here:
Youth exercise 2nd Amendment rights at 4-H shooting competition

BEDFORD Following a unanimous vote by the Town Council, three amendments to the Town Charter will be put to the electorate on the September ballot.

Vice Chairman Chris Bandazian explained the amendments at last week's meeting. The first would expand the time allowed to replace a town councilor; the second would expand the time allowed for a town manager to move to Bedford; and the third would bring the council's bonding authority into compliance with state law.

Bandazian said the motivation for the second amendment is the need to hire a new town manager in light of barriers faced during the nearly seven-month search period.

Hopefully we will be successful in this latest round of recruitment, but if for some reason we aren't, if we do not have these amendments on the September ballot, we'll have to wait until March, Bandazian said.

The next amendment deals with town manager residency. Whereas the current provision requires a town manager to relocate to Bedford within six months, the amendment would extend that period to 18 months.

According to MRI, the firm hired to conduct Bedford's town manager search after a failed effort on the part of the council, certain high-powered candidates have rejected the position due to residency requirement.

But doing away with the requirement was off the table, Bandazian said. We all felt that the loyalty and investment that one has in the town, by virtue of residency, was very important and something that should be preserved.

Candidates have expressed concern with the necessity to move to Bedford in six months, he added, given the amount of time it takes to sell a house.

A second household income is another important factor, with candidates unsure of whether their spouses would find equal-paying work in the area.

The inability to find new work because of the way the labor market is at the current time also made it difficult for people to relocate, where that second income would have to be sacrificed, Bandazian said.

Read more from the original source:
Struggling with town manager search, Bedford mulls change

UPDATE: Congressman Ed Perlmutters campaign weighs in.

The National Rifle Association has endorsed congressional candidate Joe Coors, saying the Golden Republican is committed to protecting our Second Amendment freedoms and hunting heritage.

The endorsement is from the NRAs political victory fund, which does not automatically endorse the Republican in the race, said spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. In Colorado in 2010, the group endorsed two Democratic incumbents, Reps. John Salazar of Manassa, and Betsy Markey of Fort Collins, over their GOP challengers, Scott Tipton and Cory Gardner, respectively. Arulanandam said the incumbents had strong 2nd Amendment records.

The NRA doesnt share that opinion of Coors opponent, Democrat Ed Perlmutter, who is seeking his fourth term in the 7th Congressional District.

Joe Coors is a strong supporter of national concealed carry, the Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act, and legislation to help open access to public lands to sportsmen, the NRA said in its release. In contrast, his opponent voted against the Sportsmens Heritage Act of 2012 and the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act. In addition, Congressman Perlumutter supports the reauthorization of the Clinton Gun Ban and refused to sign both the Heller and McDonald amicus briefs.

Coors zinged Perlmutter at the news.

My opponent seems to think that taking guns away from the good guys will keep the bad guys from getting them, Coors said. I know the difference and I will act accordingly as your congressman from the 7th District. Unlike my opponent, I trust Colorados gun owners and will work in Congress to ensure that they enjoy the freedom the Second Amendment guarantees, not less.

Perlmutters campaign said he has a strong record of supporting the 2nd Amendment, back to his days in the state Senate.

What we share is support for the 2nd Amendment and law abiding citizens and sportsmens rights to lawfully buy firearms, the campaign said in a statement.

What Joe Coors and the NRA apparently dont share, is Eds belief that cop-killer assault weapons should be restricted and there should be background checks so people with mental illnesses cant buy guns, which is what could have prevented some of the terrible gun-related school and church killings in our state and country and why law enforcement endorses Ed.

Originally posted here:
NRA goes ahead, makes Joe Coors’ day

If we are serious about knowing what the founding fathers believed about the Second Amendment, we need to read their documents:

"(It is) only beginning in the second half of the 20th century that the Orwellian view gained currency that 'the people' means the states ... that 'right' means governmental power, that 'keep' does not mean to possess, that 'bear' does not mean carry, that 'arms' do not include ordinary handguns and rifles and that 'infringe' does not include prohibition." S.P. Halbrook

I will quote a few of hundreds of examples of the stance of the founding fathers on the Second Amendment:

Mass Declaration of Rights, 1778: "The people had a right to keep and bear arms."

Documentary History of the Ratifications: "From keeping their own arms," Samuel Adams.

Debates in the Several State Conventions, "Having our arms in our own possession," Patrick Henry, who also states that "we trust in our possession rather than in the control by Congress."

A Dissertation on Slavery, by St. George Tucker: "If the amendment did not mean individuals, why were slaves prohibited to keep arms?"

Creating the Bill of Rights: "The right to keep arms for common and extraordinary occasions," Samuell Nasson.

Nw York Journal, March 23, 1769: "It is a natural right which the people have ... confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defense."

The Papers of Thomas Jefferson: "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

Read more:
Bill Abbott: Second Amendment has only one meaning, implication

Ladies and gentlemen, lets take this opportunity to recognize that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to keep and bear fireworks.

We love our freedoms here, but the community doesnt have much of an appetite for the rockets' red glare just now. In the Pikes Peak region weve seen plenty of the wrong kind of fireworks in the past week.

The private use of fireworks has been banned across Colorado. In Colorado Springs, City Hall banned public fireworks displays and enacted a zero tolerance policy for anyone caught setting off fireworks.

That means in cases in which someone might have received a warning in the past, they will now receive a municipal court summons. As the Colorado Springs Police Department reminded us a few days ago, a conviction for such a violation may carry a fine of up to $500 and

or 90 days in jail.

If property damage or injury occurs as a result of such a violation the perpetrator may be charged with the Colorado State statute of arson.

The cause of the Waldo Canyon Fire still is being investigated, but in the week before it started, law enforcement officials in Park and Teller counties were trying to find a serial arsonist who had set little fires near Lake George, Divide and Woodland Park.

The landscape is so dry that the smallest fire can become a big one. Youd have to be crazy or stupid to play with fireworks now.

So of course we can assume some people still will do it.

It seems crazy, but even though the use of fireworks has been banned, there are still fireworks stands in unincorporated Adams, Arapahoe, Douglas and Jefferson counties. If its illegal to use them anywhere in the state, why would we allow them to be sold?

See more here:
NOREEN: Let's lay off the fireworks

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit against Alameda County after county supervisors barred a gun shop from opening in San Lorenzo.

"We believe the supervisors' actions are a denial of equal rights and due process protected by the 14th Amendment and the rights of gun ownership under the Second Amendment," said Alan Gottlieb, the Second Amendment Foundation's executive vice president.

Businessmen John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga and Gary Gamaza had been granted a variance and conditional use permit in December to open Valley Guns & Ammo at 488 Lewelling Blvd. in San Lorenzo. The San Lorenzo Village Homes Association then appealed the decision. In February, supervisors overturned the West County Board of Zoning Adjustments and denied the permit.

The partners had planned to sell antique guns, specialized sporting goods weapons and offer gunsmith and cleaning services. In addition, they would have offered classes in gun safety, maintenance and hunting safety.

The shop also would have accepted consignment sales. Teixeira, who owned a gun shop in Castro Valley before he retired, said he wanted to help people dispose of their weapons. Several of his former customers are getting elderly and want a place where they know they will get a decent price for their guns, he said.

The variance was required because the county said the shop would be closer than 500 feet to two residential areas. One of the issues the lawsuit

"The facts in this case are outrageous," Gottlieb said. When the three businessmen began the process of getting permits to open their shop, they were advised of a requirement that gun stores not be located within 500 feet of any school, liquor store or residence, he said.

"After carefully measuring distances between the shop's front door and the front door of the nearest property," he continued, "they found that they were well beyond the 500-foot limit. But then the county changed the measurement requirements."

"We did everything right, everything correct," Teixeira said. "We were told a number of times we were OK with our application."

Alameda County Counsel Donna Ziegler said, "It's my understanding that the county followed its standard procedures and policies for dealing with this permit." She said the county has not been served yet, but "we're prepared to defend the litigation."

See original here:
Alameda County is sued over San Lorenzo gun shop denial

By Joe Palazzolo

Michigans second-highest court on Tuesday ruled that the states stun-gun ban violates the SecondAmendment. In so doing, the Michigan Court of Appeals also said the Second Amendment protects the open carrying of at least some weapons.

From the opinion:

Because tasers and stun guns do not fit any of the exceptions to the Second Amendment enumerated in [D.C. v. Heller], we find that they are protected arms. Heller found unconstitutional a law which completely banned the possession of protected arms in the home. We therefore hold that a complete ban on tasers and stun guns in the home violates the Second Amendment.

The next question is whether the protected status of these arms makes unconstitutional a complete ban on carrying them in public. Heller specifically addressed only a full ban of protected weapons inside the home, not in public. Further, the analysis in Heller focused in part on the unmatched popularity of handguns for self-defense, and did not make clear to what extent greater restrictions could be applied to less popular weapons.

On the other hand, Heller states that concealed weapons may be banned, but makes no such statement regarding openly carried arms. Indeed, Heller cites with approval two state cases that struck down laws prohibiting the public carrying of hand guns. The Second Amendment explicitly protects the right to carry as well as the right to keep arms. Likewise, the Michigan Constitution specifically allows citizens to bear arms for self-defense. We therefore conclude that a total prohibition on the open carrying of a protectedarm such as a taser or stun gun is unconstitutional.

Stun guns are legal in 43 states. They are banned in Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Virgin Islands and Wisconsin.

h/tthe Volokh Conspiracy

View original post here:
Michigan Court Zaps State Stun-Gun Ban

Published: Sunday, June 24, 2012 at 6:30 a.m. Last Modified: Friday, June 22, 2012 at 6:52 p.m.

On June 18, the Star-Banner published an editorial, "Dishing out loaded questions," that left a lot to be desired.

As in the past, the primary purpose of the editorial appeared to be to bash the National Rifle Association. Like many liberal newspapers, the Star-Banner refers to the NRA as if it were a monster in the forest, always plotting some evil deed against the population.

The fact is, the NRA is an organization made up of people just like you and me people who put great value on our constitutional rights, specifically on the Second Amendment. The NRA has millions of members. They come from all walks of life hard-working, mostly middle-class folks who might be your neighbors. They are law-abiding people who tend to be self-sufficient and believe in individual responsibility.

That's the real "gun lobby," as the paper calls it, not the intimidating bully described in the editorial.

What the Star-Banner has never seemed to realize in the 20 years I've lived in Marion County is that, because we live so close to so many outdoor recreational venues our many lakes, rivers and the Ocala National Forest this town has more than its share of hunters, fishermen, campers and outdoorsmen. A large percentage own firearms, which they use for hunting, target shooting and, yes, self-protection.

The June 18 editorial calls a recent questionnaire sent out by the NRA to candidates for sheriff "a web of intimidation." For example, one question asks: "Do you agree that no victim of a crime should be required to surrender his life, health, safety, personal dignity, autonomy or property to a criminal, nor should a victim be required to retreat in the face of an attack from any place he or she has a right to be?" The answers are: a) "Yes, I believe the Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground' is appropriate, and victims have a right to fight back without a duty to retreat"; or b) "No, I oppose the Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground' and believe victims should surrender to criminals or retreat to avoid fighting back." The paper says: "Fight back" or "surrender to criminals" the NRA doesn't allow for a middle ground.

I say, what middle ground?

You either fight or you surrender/retreat. By the way, in many cases, turning your back on an aggressor and retreating will get you killed.

The Star-Banner has an equally jaundiced view on the rest of the questions in the document sent to the candidates. But don't we as voters have a right to know where our law-enforcement personnel, especially the sheriff himself, stand on the issue of self-defense?

Originally posted here:
Making sense of the NRA's 'loaded questions'