Category Archives: Second Amendment

Click photo to enlarge

1999 file photo: Pastor Marcos Vasquez of the Outcry in the Barrio congregation in Hayward protested the posting of signs in his neighborhood for a gun show at the Pleasanton Fairgrounds.

Alameda County has resolved its 12-year legal battle over a ban on gun shows on government property, persuading a federal appeals court that its law is constitutional because of recent concessions that will allow gun promoters to showcase weapons within tight restrictions.

In a unanimous 11-judge ruling Friday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the county's ordinance, finding that it does not violate the Second Amendment. The decision was fact-specific, avoiding broader gun rights issues because gun shows are now permitted if promoters agree to provisions the court called "reasonable."

"No matter how broad the scope of the Second Amendment -- an issue we leave for another day -- it is clear that, as applied to the plaintiffs' gun shows, and as interpreted by the county, this regulation is permissible," Judge Susan Graber wrote for the court.

The ruling stems from a long-running challenge by a Glenn County couple to a 1999 ordinance that had outlawed gun shows at the Pleasanton fairgrounds. Russell and Sallie Nordyke, promoters of TS Gun Shows, have seen more restrictions on such shows across the Bay Area, including in Alameda, Marin and San Mateo counties, as they've battled for their Second Amendment rights in the 9th Circuit.

The Nordykes could not be reached for comment Friday, but their lawyer issued a statement saying they consider the decision a victory and plan to put on a gun show in Alameda County.

Sayre

"This has always been a public safety regulation," she said. "They have to present their safety plan and show how they are going to comply."

The 9th Circuit case was expected to be a key legal test of the scope of recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings establishing that the Second Amendment applies to state and local gun regulations. But the case turned in a different direction over the past few months, as Alameda County officials indicated that the ordinance does not necessarily amount to an outright ban on gun shows, limiting its effect on Second Amendment rights.

Link:
Alameda County gun show ordinance upheld by appeals court

I am generally an avid supporter of Second Amendment rights. The Constitution explicitly allows for the population to own guns, as they tend to reduce crime and make men feel much more badass.

However, in Texas, a law has been proposed to allow for concealed carry of guns on university campuses. This is an incredibly bad idea, as concealed carry is not only generally unnecessary, but may cause further difficulties beyond that which it was intended to solve. First, let's get this straight. If a university is privately owned, then it is at the discretion of the university whether or not to allow concealed carry. However, the legislation in Texas concerns public, government-owned universities.

Under this context, it is easy to discern some issues with the arguments proponents make. Most government buildings do not allow firearms inside for public safety and security reasons.

The buildings are owned by the people, and the people often do not want to have a gun in their face while going about public duties.

For the same reasons guns are not allowed in the state capitol or in the airports, they should not be allowed within public universities. These are public places for people to congregate, and it is unfair to ruin them with guns.What good would a gun do on a college campus? The argument being made is that they may prevent another massacre like the one that happened at Virginia Tech.

Allowing concealed carry would certainly not prevent another one; in fact, it might even enhance the risk. Primarily, it would allow a shooter to walk around a building with his gun without looking suspicious.

If a shooter were truly determined, he would not be deterred by the possibility of other students having guns. In fact, he would target those students first.

Despite the name, concealed carry weapons are notoriously easy to detect on a person, unless the carrier has extensive military or police training.

Beyond the fact a concealed carry policy would likely increase the number of deaths in a massacre, there are already policies in place to prevent another Virginia Tech. Nearly all campuses have an emergency notification system, whereas a student may receive an email, text and phone call to alert him that a shooter may be in the vicinity. Lockdown procedures will be initiated quite rapidly, and the shooter will be unable to reach any more students as they are locked in classrooms with barricaded doors. Finally, the police response will be incredibly rapid, with SWAT teams taking down the shooter within minutes of his first shots.

It is far better to have these trained professionals deal with a deranged madman than other students. In the end, despite the second amendment, concealed carry on campuses is an atrociously bad idea.

Read the rest here:
Students with concealed weapons threaten safety

A bill to protect gun rights in Louisiana received final approval from the Louisiana Legislature today, putting a Constitutional Amendment on the ballot this fall for voters to approve that if passed will give Louisiana one of the country's strongest Second Amendment protections. State Senator Neil Riser sponsored SB 303 and the bill is part of the Governor's 2012 legislative package.

Governor Jindal said, "We are adopting the strongest, most iron-clad, constitutional protection for law-abiding gun owners. It's our own Second Amendment, if you will, and I look forward to voting for this amendment in the fall."

State Senator Riser said, "Today's vote was a major victory for the citizens of Louisiana as we move closer to protecting a fundamental right given to us by our founding fathers."

State Representative Chris Broadwater, who sponsored the bill on the House floor, said, "This is an important statement about how we in Louisiana value freedom and fundamental rights that are enshrined in the Constitution."

If passed by the voters, the Louisiana Constitution will read: "The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny."

Read the original post:
Bill to Protect Gun Rights Receives Final Approval from Legislature

If you ask the typical hyper-political gun owner (and I have ... at Thanksgiving dinner), why its important to own a gun, theyll bark about the Constitution. Yes, the Second Amendment: The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed!

This, of course, is the slogan the National Rifle Association adopted in the 1970s. It was then that owning a gun became an absolute right endowed by God and the Constitution. A blessing passed down by our forefathers to obliterate game and protect our property. The NRA was founded in 1870, and for its first hundred years, it was for gun control and didnt mention the Second Amendment as its cause.

In his delicious book, Gun Fight, Adam Winkler points out that what we call the Wild West had some of the strictest gun control laws weve seen as a nation. The shootout at the OK Corral took place, after all, because Wyatt Earp was trying to disarm the outlaw cowboys in accordance with a Tombstone ordinance. The KKK was, among other things, a gun control organization. They were trying to keep guns out of the hands of newly freed slaves ... but still, gun control.

The part of the Second Amendment omitted from the NRAs slogan is: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ... . Yes, well regulated its in the Constitution!

Now, to some, guns are as sacred as Scripture. If you ask, again, this typical hyper-political gun owner why they need to stockpile assault rifles, youll get an answer much like Pat Flynns response. Flynn, a recent candidate for a Senate seat in Nebraska, said in a debate before the primary, Really, we have our guns to protect ourselves against the government, number one. Huntings number two. But protecting us against our government is number one. Remember, Flynn was trying to land a job in the government. (He didnt win his partys nomination, by the way).

The idea is that we have to be just as armed as our government in order to be safer or have more liberty (or something). The U.S. government has unmanned drones armed with supersonic laser-guided anti-armor Hellfire missiles, bunker busters and nuclear weapons. Are far-right politicians saying we need civilians to have shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles for protection? Of course theyre not. They actually do want limits on ownership.

And if you ask the most vehement gun-rights advocate why gun owners shouldnt have nuclear weapons, Id bet youd get the same answer as to why we dont want every country to have the capability: Because they could get into the wrong hands.

So weapons-grade plutonium should be limited. But the ever-handy semi-auto Glock pistol with a 30-round high-capacity magazine is an absolute right?

A recent gun buyback drive in Los Angeles resulted in someone turning in a rocket launcher. Comforting.

So were not actually talking about limited versus unlimited. We are talking about degrees of weapon ownership.

View post:
Dupuy: Everybody believes in some gun control

If you ask the typical hyper-political gun owner (and I have ... at Thanksgiving dinner), why its important to own a gun, theyll bark about the Constitution. Yes, the Second Amendment: The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed!

This of course is the slogan the National Rifle Association adopted in the 1970s. It was then that owning a gun became an absolute right endowed by God and the Constitution. A blessing passed down by our forefathers to obliterate game and protect our property. The NRA was founded in 1870 and for its first hundred years it was for gun control and didnt mention the Second Amendment as their cause.

Adam Winkler points out in his delicious book, Gun Fight, what we call the wild west had some of the strictest gun control laws weve seen as a nation. The shootout at the OK Corral took place, after all, because Wyatt Earp was trying to disarm the outlaw Cowboys in accordance with a Tombstone ordinance. The KKK was, among other things, a gun control organization. They were trying to keep guns out of the hands of newly freed slaves ... but still gun control.

The part of the Second Amendment omitted from the NRAs slogan is: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State... Yes, well regulated its in the Constitution!

Now, to some, guns are as sacred as scripture. If you ask, again, this typical hyper-political gun owner why they need to stockpile assault rifles, you will get an answer much like Pat Flynns, a recent candidate for a Senate seat in Nebraska. Really, we have our guns to protect ourselves against the government, number one, Flynn said in a debate right before the primary. Huntings number two. But protecting us against our government is number one. Remember, Flynn was trying to land a job in the government (he didnt win his partys nomination, by the way).

The idea is that we have to be just as armed as our government in order to be safer or have more liberty (or something). The U.S. government has unmanned drones armed with supersonic laser-guided anti-armor Hellfire missiles, bunker busters, and nuclear weapons. Are far-right politicians saying we need civilians to have shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles for protection? Of course theyre not. They actually do want limits on ownership.

And if you ask the most vehement gun rights advocate why gun owners shouldnt have nuclear weapons, Id bet youd get the same answer as to why we dont want every country to have the capability: Because they could get into the wrong hands.

So weapons-grade plutonium should be limited. But the ever-handy semi-auto Glock pistol with a 30-round high-capacity magazine is an absolute right?

A recent gun buyback drive in Los Angeles resulted in someone turning in a rocket launcher. Comforting.

So were not actually talking about limited vs. unlimited. We are talking about degrees of weapon ownership.

Visit link:
Dupuy: Trust me, you believe in gun control

Ask either of the Republican contestants for the new 27th Congressional District about gun rights, and theyll tell you point-blank theyre better than the other guy in defending the Second Amendment.

Iraq War veteran David Bellavia points to his unequivocal support of gun rights and rattles off a list of credentials he says qualifies him in a region where hunters and sportsmen abound.

Former County Executive Chris Collins points to the gun permit he has carried for 25 years, the four pistols he owns and the backing provided by the National Rifle Association when he unsuccessfully ran for Congress in 1998.

But now Bellavia is trying to outgun Collins over just who defends Second Amendment rights and who doesnt. He charges that Collins the former Erie County executive he will face in the June 26 GOP primary for the seat held by Democrat Kathleen C. Hochul signed on four years ago to an effort sponsored by New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to restrict the freedom of gun owners.

In a Sunday speech to the Niagara County Sportsmens Association, Bellavia attacked Collins for acting as a founding member of Bloombergs County Executives Against Illegal Guns. The organization acted as a companion group to Mayors Against Illegal Guns and aimed to develop county legislation and enforcement efforts to prevent guns from falling into the hands of criminals, according to a 2008 announcement of its formation.

But Bellavia said he viewed the organization differently. He said both Bloomberg groups opposed the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act, which permits approved gun owners to carry weapons in all states. He said the two groups called the legislation dangerous and claimed that a national reciprocity standard undermines public safety.

I disagree, Bellavia told the sportsmen. Depriving Americans of their fundamental right to self-defense undermines public safety; depriving us of our constitutional rights undermines what it means to be an American.

But Collins argues that his credentials are just as strong, and that his brief dalliance with Bloomberg stemmed from trickery and his own naivete when he first became county executive in 2007.

I said I was against illegal guns, he said. Isnt everyone against illegal guns?

But Collins said he got snookered into joining the group and withdrew within two weeks once he discovered it supported gun legislation he found restrictive and against the Second Amendment.

Read this article:
Bellavia tries to outgun Collins in speech on right to bear arms

By Denise Moran For The Courier-News May 18, 2012 2:50PM

Updated: May 19, 2012 5:25PM

HAMPSHIRE The village board has approved a second amendment to the annexation agreement for the Brier Hill Crossing property in a move officials believe will help the owner sell homes there.

Known as the Lakewood Crossing subdivision, the property is north of Big Timber Road, west of Route 47 and south of I-90. Ryland Homes took over the subdivision after its previous developer lost the unsold parts of the development to its mortgage holder. The subdivision includes both single-family and duplex homes.

Ryland Homes came before the board earlier this year asking to reduce the rear yard setbacks on eight duplex lots in order to allow models to fit within the buildable area. It also sought relief from impact and transition fees.

By approving the second amendment to the annexation agreement, Village Administrator Doug Maxeiner said this past week, the village has brought the fees back to what they were in 2005 when the subdivision was originally approved and annexed.

We will keep this rate for two years, Maxeiner said.

By the village agreeing to this, said Trustee George Brust, we are trying to kick-start the economy.

In other news:

The board unanimously approved three proposed improvements to Hampshire Memorial Park, at the southeast corner of Route 72 and Getzelman Road.

Here is the original post:
Hampshire OKs changes to aid Lakewood Crossing subdivision

SPRINGFIELD, Ill.-- State Representative Mike Bost (R-Murphysboro) is asking Second Amendment supporters to sign a petition supporting the passage of House Bill 148 which would allow law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon.

"Illinois is the only state in the union without a concealed carry law in the books," Bost said. "I am urging citizens in favor of concealed carry legislation to sign our petition urging Speaker Madigan to release conceal carry legislation out of the House Rules Committee and onto the House floor for a vote before we adjourn later this month."

Illinois is the only state in the nation that has no procedures in place for law-abiding citizens to apply for concealed carry permits. In 2008's Heller Decision, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized gun ownership as an individual right. In 2010, the Supreme Court overturned Chicago's long-standing handgun ban, ruling that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

"There has never been a better time to get conceal carry legislation on the books in Illinois. I am hoping we can garner enough signatures to get the attention of leaders from the Chicago area to get a vote this spring," said Bost.

Representative Bost is urging Second Amendment supporters to visit his website to sign the conceal carry petition. Youcandothat by,clickinghere.

Excerpt from:
Ill. State Rep. wants citizens to sign concealed carry petition.

Mike and Valinda Rowe, local Second Amendment activists, report that a vote may be imminent on HB148, the family and personal protection bill which recognizes the right to carry a firearm for personal protection.

Having just returned from a five day blitz of right to carry town hall meetings in the Chicago/Cook County area, and keeping in close communication with the bill sponsors, the Rowes expect a vote in the House of Representatives within the next two weeks.

"We don't need everyone to vote for the bill," said Valinda Rowe. "Rep. Brandon Phelps of Harrisburg, and chief sponsor of the bill, believes he is only a couple votes short of the super majority of 71 needed to pass the bill.

"We have been targeting those districts which have representatives who appear to be on the fence about this issue. It was a grueling schedule but we have good folks from Second Amendment Sisters and the ISRA joining us at the town hall meetings. We work so well together it's like they have become like family."

The Rowes said they have been hearing good things from the State Capitol in Springfield since their return. They are very optimistic at this time that the bill can pass the House and things appear to be shaping up in the Senate as well. If the bill get this through both houses in May, the right to carry lobby will be ready to go for the override of the governor's promised veto in the fall veto session.

"Nothing is a slam dunk at this point, but things are looking very good for our side right now," Valinda added.

Lawsuits challenging the state's ban on carrying a firearm for personal protection are making their way through the federal judicial system. Both the Second Amendment Foundation case on behalf of local plaintiff Peggy Fechter and IllinoisCarry.com (Moore vs. Madigan) and the NRA lawsuit on behalf of Mary Shepard from Anna (Shepard vs.` Madigan) were both dismissed in federal district court and have been appealed to the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, the court which handed out a stinging ruling against the city of Chicago's ban on gun ranges in the Ezell vs. Chicago lawsuit.

The oral arguments for the Shephard and Moore case will be heard Friday, June 8, and a ruling can be expected sometime in August.

"When Valinda and I started pushing the right to carry issue several years ago, we had legislators literally laugh at us and say 'never in Illinois.' Well, they aren't laughing now," Mike Rowe said. "It has been a long hard battle and we are ready for a victory. We just hope it comes this year."

Read the rest here:
Rowes say right to carry vote likely to pass soon

Assemblyman Will Barclay (R,C,IPulaski) said today (May 15) a bill (A380) that is moving quickly through the State Assembly and is currently on the legislative calendar for a vote is yet another attack on Second Amendment Rights the right to Bear Arms.

The Democratic majority-sponsored legislation would make it so that those holding a pistol permit would need to renew their permit every five years.

This proposal serves no purpose, other than to limit access for responsible citizens to protect themselves and their property and to infringe again on sportsmen. Its another layer of government and fees that responsible pistol permit owners do not need, said Barclay. In many cases, people invest in a pistol permit with the hope they will never have to use it to protect themselves from an intruder, for example. A pistol permit renewal of every five years is unnecessary.

Barclay said he will vote against this measure when it reaches the Assembly floor.

There are already enough safeguards in the law to protect those who might not be responsible from legally holding a gun permit, he said.

For example, it is illegal for a person convicted of a felony or a domestic violence misdemeanor, suffering from a mental incapacity or subject to an order of protection to possess firearms.

. Bookmark the

.

View post:
Barclay: Pistol Permit Renewal Yet Another Attack On Second Amendment Rights