Category Archives: Second Amendment

Assemblyman Will Barclay (R,C,IPulaski) said Tuesday he was pleased to meet with sportsmen in Albany as part of the annual Sportsmen and Outdoor Recreation Legislative Awareness Day.

Assemblyman Will Barclay, second from left, attended the Sportsmen and Outdoor Recreation Legislative Awareness Day. He is among several who attended the event today to listen to speakers discuss the importance of the Second Amendment, our right to bear arms. Pictured at the podium is Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association.

The event featured a keynote speech from Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President & CEO of the National Rifle Association (NRA), on the importance of ensuring the Second Amendment Constitutional Freedoms of all law-abiding New Yorkers. Tom King, President of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA), industry leaders and thousands of outdoor enthusiasts from across the state attended this free event.

Hunting, fishing and trapping activities contribute more than $1.8 billion to our economy annually. Snowmobiling is a $476 million-dollar industry for the state, with over 130,000 registered snowmobiles on trails each year. There are also roughly 1.9 million New Yorkers who participate in ATV recreation.

It was great to see so many sportsmen and outdoor enthusiasts rallying for Second Amendment Rights and legislation that helps promote the sporting industry today. We need to continue to rally to raise awareness and protect our right to bear arms. Downstate interests in the Assembly would like to make owning a gun more expensive by placing microstamping mandates on gun manufacturers. This technology is unproven and would place more costs on New York gun manufacturers, said Barclay.

An Assembly budget bill proposes microstampinga unique alpha-numeric or geometric code on the firing pin, identifying the make, model, and serial number of the pistol. Manufacturers would bear the cost of implementing this new regulation. The success of this technology is unproven and gun manufacturers have yet to devise technology that can ensure the make, model, and serial number of the pistol is coded into an expended cartridge.

Our Second Amendment is the core principle that defines our nation. There is no greater freedom than to own a firearm to protect ourselves, our families, our communities and our nation, said LaPierre. Thus, Second Amendment freedom is, truly, the heart and soul of America. And, it is all at stake this year. This is a fight for our values and for the freedom we believe in. Its all or nothing and gun owners, everywhere, from Albany to Seattle, and from Anchorage to Miami are signing on. The fight is on and the NRA is ALL IN!

.

Read more here:
Legislative Day Raises Awareness for Sportsmen and Second Amendment Rights

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) is a long-time opponent of the secretly negotiated Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Today he introduced an amendment to a Senate "jobs bill" that would force ACTA to come before Congress for approval. A second amendment would make the US Trade Representative, which negotiates US trade deals, drop the veil of secrecy around its copyright and patent negotiations.

USTR currently insists the president can ratify ACTA without the usual Senate sign-off on treaties. The current legal thinking seems to be that Congress delegated this authority to the executive branch by passing 2008's PRO-IP Act, which contained a general call to cut down on counterfeiting, etc.

That legal approach is contested; Wyden's amendment simply overrules it. "Notwithstanding section 303 of the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 (15 U.S.C. 8113) or any other provision of law," it says, "the President may not accept, or provide for the entry into force with respect to the United States of, any legally binding trade agreement that imposes obligations on the United States with respect to the enforcement of intellectual property rights, including the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, without the formal and express approval of Congress."

His second amendment tries to force a change in how the whole process around such treaties is handled. Right now, the US attempts to keep its negotiating positions a secret. What vital national security interests could be at stake if the public knew USTR was promoting "graduated response" laws or proposing changes in ISP liability? Wyden doesn't believe there are any.

Even with ACTA, where the text was officially kept secret until it was too late to make major changes, unofficial leaks stirred public debate and ultimately removed many of the most odious provisions from the final text. The "next ACTA" is the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), a regional trade deal involving countries from around the Pacific Rim. Wyden wants to ensure the public doesn't have to rely on leaks to find out what's being proposed in its name.

He proposes a rule that would force USTR to release any negotiating proposals already shared with other nations in the TPP talks if they apply to "intellectual property, the Internet, or entities that use the Internet, including electronic commerce." In the future, USTR would have to post such documents from all trade negotiations within 24 hours of being shared with other countries.

Continued here:
Sen. Wyden demands vote on American copyright, patent treaties

Before the end of this year, Russell and Sallie Nordyke will set up shop for at least five gun shows at the Santa Clara County fairgrounds, providing a gathering spot for thousands of gun enthusiasts to buy and sell rifles, pistols and other weapons.

For the Glenn County couple, the South Bay is a small island amid a sea of hostility toward their TS Gun Shows. Bay Area counties from Alameda and Marin to San Mateo have enacted laws that forbid the sale or possession of guns on government property, effectively banning gun shows at some of the best spots to hold them.

The Nordykes believe those laws are unconstitutional -- and on Monday, a federal appeals court will once again take up their 12-year quest to strike down the regulations.

The case offers another crucial test of Second Amendment rights that could have repercussions for California's sweeping slate of state and local gun control laws.

Specifically, an 11-judge 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel is to hear arguments in the Nordykes' legal challenge to Alameda County's ordinance, which has outlawed gun shows at the fairgrounds in Pleasanton since 1999.

"It has impacted our lives tremendously," Sallie Nordyke said. "We used to be able to have gun shows in a lot of other places."

With gun rights groups such as the National Rifle Association on one side and gun control advocates such as the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence on the other, the Nordyke case

The most recent of those rulings, in a Chicago case two years ago, established that the Second Amendment applies to state and local gun control regulations. But it left unresolved the legal survival threshold for laws such as Alameda County's, and the 9th Circuit is expected to tackle that issue in the Nordyke case.

The outcome could determine the fate of gun show regulations in California and other states within the 9th Circuit and may also shape ongoing legal challenges to other gun controls. With the Nordyke case pending, the 9th Circuit has put on hold two cases challenging California's strict limits on carrying concealed weapons and licenses for carrying loaded firearms in public.

"This could be the next big gun case to go to the Supreme Court," said Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor and author of "Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America." "It does pose a big question: whether the right to bear arms extends outside the home."

See the original post:
Gun shows caught in the crossfire

Before the end of this year, Russell and Sallie Nordyke will set up shop for at least five gun shows at the Santa Clara County fairgrounds, providing a gathering spot for thousands of gun enthusiasts to buy and sell rifles, pistols and other weapons.

For the Glenn County couple, the South Bay is a small island amid a sea of hostility toward their TS Gun Shows. Bay Area counties from Alameda and Marin to San Mateo have enacted laws that forbid the sale or possession of guns on government property, effectively banning gun shows at some of the best spots to hold them.

The Nordykes believe those laws are unconstitutional -- and on Monday, a federal appeals court will once again take up their 12-year quest to strike down the regulations.

The case offers another crucial test of Second Amendment rights that could have repercussions for California's sweeping slate of state and local gun control laws.

Specifically, an 11-judge 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel is to hear arguments in the Nordykes' legal challenge to Alameda County's ordinance, which has outlawed gun shows at the fairgrounds in Pleasanton since 1999.

"It has impacted our lives tremendously," Sallie Nordyke said. "We used to be able to have gun shows in a lot of other places."

With gun rights groups such as the National Rifle Association on one side and gun control advocates such as the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence on the other, the Nordyke case

The most recent of those rulings, in a Chicago case two years ago, established that the Second Amendment applies to state and local gun control regulations. But it left unresolved the legal survival threshold for laws such as Alameda County's, and the 9th Circuit is expected to tackle that issue in the Nordyke case.

The outcome could determine the fate of gun show regulations in California and other states within the 9th Circuit and may also shape ongoing legal challenges to other gun controls. With the Nordyke case pending, the 9th Circuit has put on hold two cases challenging California's strict limits on carrying concealed weapons and licenses for carrying loaded firearms in public.

"This could be the next big gun case to go to the Supreme Court," said Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor and author of "Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America." "It does pose a big question: whether the right to bear arms extends outside the home."

More here:
California gun shows caught in the crossfire

By Joe Palazzolo

Todays DWS comes to us from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit via How Appealing and the Associated Press.

Errol Houston Jr. sued the City of New Orleans after the districts attorneys office refused to return a registered gun that police had seized when he was arrested on drug and firearm charges in 2008. The charges were later dropped.

Houston sued the city in July 2009, seeking the return of his gun and accusing law enforcement authorities of violating his due process and Second Amendment rights. A federal district judge dismissed the lawsuit the following year.

A divided Fifth Circuit agreed with the lower court. In the majority opinion,JudgeRhesa Hawkins Barksdale wrote (citations omitted):

Just as some regulation of speeche.g., of obscenity and defamationis outside the reach of the First Amendment, so, too, is some regulation of firearms outside the reach of the Second. The right protectedby the Second Amendment is not a property-like right to a specific firearm, but rather a right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

Houston has not alleged defendants prevented his retaining or acquiringother firearms.Therefore, he has not stated aviolation of his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, in her dissent, said the majority opinion contravenes the Supreme Courts 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, and its 2010 ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago, which held that the right applies to state and local restrictions on firearms.

According to Elrod,

In the context of other enumerated constitutional rights, an equivalent per se exception for particular exercises of the right at stake (so long as other exercises of that right are permitted) would be intolerable. Consider,for example, a court holding that the Free Speech Clause affords no protection against the government preventing the publication of a particular editorial in the New York Times because there are plenty of other newspapers that mightpublish the piece. Or consider a court holding that the Fourth Amendment is inapplicable to the unreasonable seizure of a specific automobile so long as the government does not prevent the owner from borrowing, renting, or purchasinga replacement vehicle. These examples should suffice to show the absurdity ofcourts recognizing categorical exceptions for each particular exercise of thoserights.In carving out such an exception from the Second Amendment, todays majority impermissibly treats the Amendment as a second-class right.

More:
Daily Writing Sample: Right to Keep and Bear Arms is Not ‘Property-Like’

JEFFERSON CITY Many Missouri lawmakers want to protect gun owners from any threat of workplace discrimination, just as state residents currently are protected for race, religion and gender.

Legislation that would make it illegal for employers to discriminate against people because they own or use guns overwhelmingly passed the Missouri House before lawmakers left for spring break.

For bill sponsor Wanda Brown, a Republican from Lincoln, the goal is simple: "We would never consider giving up our First Amendment (free speech) rights for a job. Why should we give up our Second Amendment rights?"

The National Rifle Association is pushing similar gun owner discrimination bills in other states, including Alabama and Tennessee, where the proposal has put lawmakers in a crossfire between gun activists and some of the state's largest employers. Some of the state's largest corporations, including FedEx, Bridgestone and Volkswagen, testified against the legislation and companion gun bills earlier this month.

They argued that it could make companies more vulnerable to discrimination lawsuits and could hurt the state's job creation efforts.

In Missouri, some lawmakers have questioned whether the legislation is needed. No one has provided examples of an employee facing discrimination over gun ownership.

"Does a person carrying a gun really qualify as a class that needs to be protected against discrimination in housing or employment?" said Rep. Mary Nichols, D-Maryland Heights.

Missouri currently prohibits discrimination based on "race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, disability or age."

Some lawmakers said it's more important to add protections based on sexual orientation than gun ownership.

"The Missouri House thinks it's more important to protect the right to own a gun than take on real discrimination," said Rep. Mike Colona, a Democrat from St. Louis who is gay. "I could get fired tomorrow because of the person I've spent the past 18 years of my life with."

Read the rest here:
Bill to bar employer bias against gun owners gets OK

Assemblyman Will Barclay (R,C,I,-Pulaski) said including language that would govern gun manufacturers in a budget bill is ludicrous. This is a stand-alone issue, Barclay said. Barclay opposes microstamping because it would put unnecessary burdens on gun manufacturers and has not proven to be successful.

The Assembly budget bill A9055C is 73 pages long and includes topics ranging from disaster preparedness and state contracting, as well as microstamping.

Microstamping does not have a place in a budget bill. Last year, I voted against a similar measure in the Assembly when it was brought to the floor as a stand-alone bill. This is yet another attempt by New York City special interests to restrict our constitutional rights, said Barclay. Microstamping is nothing but a costly hindrance to Upstate manufacturers and has proven to be ineffective.

Microstamping has been a controversial issue in New York for many years. It would force manufacturers to produce a unique alpha-numeric or geometric code on the firing pin identifying the make, model, and serial number of the pistol. Manufacturers would bear the cost of implementing this new regulation. The success of this technology is unproven.

Gun manufacturers have yet to devise technology that can ensure the make, model, and serial number of the pistol is coded into an expended cartridge. Further, it could force firearms manufacturers out of New York, said Barclay.

Last year, the Assembly passed this measure but the Senate did not.

I have voted against this measure in the past. If there is going to be anti-gun legislation then it should crack down on possession of illegal firearms and crack down on the criminals who use them, not on the law-abiding citizens of New York and the gun manufacturers, said Barclay. Further, including this in a budget bill is politics at its best in the Assembly Democratic majority. These all-encompassing budget bills force lawmakers to vote yes or no on a whole slew of items that should be addressed individually.

There will be an annual sportsmen Day in Albany on March 20 from 9 a.m. to noon.

Barclay invites anyone interested in protecting Second Amendment Rights to join him in Albany that day.

For more information, call (315) 598-5185.

The rest is here:
Barclay Defends New Yorkers’ Second Amendment Rights

LANSING Bay County attorneys this morning appeared before a state Court of Appeals, debating whether a statewide ban on civilian use of Tasers and stun guns violates the U.S. Constitution.

The debate between Bay County Assistant Prosecutor Sylvia Linton and defense attorney Kenneth W. Malkin was triggered by Bay County Circuit Judge Joseph K. Sheerans decision in April 2011 to dismiss a four-year felony charge of possession of a stun gun against Dean S. Yanna. Sheeran ruled in favor of defense attorney Malkins position that the statewide ban on electrical weapons violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Addressing judges Michael J. Kelly, Douglas B. Shapiro and Kurtis T. Wilder, Linton said the right to bear arms is not a fundamental right, and even if it were, it would not be exempt from scrutiny. She said police who carry Tasers are trained in their use and that electrical weapons are typically used for criminal endeavors, such as in domestic violence situations where a man might torture his wife or girlfriend with a stun gun.

So he can own a gun and shoot her, but he cant own a stun gun and not shoot her? Kelly asked.

Correct, Linton replied. Just because something is non-lethal doesnt mean its non-dangerous. These weapons are tailor-made for rapists and kidnappers.

Linton also said stun guns have no purpose but to incapacitate, while firearms can be used for sport. Kelly asked her if the states ban on electrical weapons for civilian use should be lifted if a stun gun-centered sport were invented.

Linton said, No.

In making his argument, Malkin said the founding fathers intent with the Second Amendment was to ensure citizens have the right to use common weapons to defend themselves. Therefore, he continued, the courts must account for advancements in technology when determining what manner of weapons fall under the Second Amendment.

The stun gun was developed as an advancement of firearms, designed for self-defense on airplanes, Malkin said.

Malkin took issue with Lintons point that stun guns and Tasers are exceptionally prone for use in criminal hands.

Read the original here:
Sparks fly between Bay County attorneys in Court of Appeals stun gun case

1:00 AM

By Susan M. Cover scover@mainetoday.com MaineToday Media State House Writer

AUGUSTA -- A bill that would allow state workers to store concealed weapons in their locked vehicles while they are at work gained initial approval Monday from the Maine House.

L.D. 1603 would extend to state workers the same rights that a bill last year granted to workers in the private sector. The House voted 84-55 in support of the bill, which now goes to the Senate for consideration and will face further votes in the House.

Rep. David Burns, R-Whiting, said the bill would reaffirm the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

"I don't give up those constitutional rights because I'm a state employee, and I shouldn't be asked to," he said.

Last year, Rep. Dale Crafts, R-Lisbon, sponsored legislation that says employers cannot prohibit workers with concealed-firearms permits from keeping guns in their locked vehicles at work.

This year, Crafts came back with a separate bill to extend that provision to vehicles parked on state property, including courts and the State House.

The Legislature's Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee voted 8-5 in support of the bill. The committee's House chairman, Rep. Gary Plummer, R-Windham, said people who have concealed-weapons permits have been "thoroughly vetted" and judged by Maine State Police to have "good moral character."

"It seemed to many of us this was just affirming rights people already have," he said.

Go here to read the rest:
Second Amendment enters concealed weapon bill debate

DOES THE Second Amendment protect an individual right to carry a gun outside the home?

Last week, a federal judge in Maryland concluded that it does and in the process struck down a Maryland licensing provision for carrying concealed weapons in public.

Judge Benson Everett Legg of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland issued a thoughtful and measured decision but one that should be reviewed by the federal appeals court.

Marylands laws concerning concealed-carry permits are among the countrys most restrictive. To obtain such a permit, an applicant must undergo a criminal background check and provide employment verification and medical and psychiatric history. The board that assesses requests must also take into account an applicants propensity for violence or instability, and it must determine that the applicant has a good and substantial reason to carry a concealed weapon. Security guards, armored-car drivers and others whose professions expose them to danger often meet this latter requirement, but permits may also be issued to those who prove that carrying a concealed weapon is necessary as a reasonable precaution . . . against apprehended danger.

Until 2009, Raymond Woollard was one of the roughly 47,000 individuals in possession of a Maryland concealed-carry permit. Mr. Woollard obtained the permit in 2003 after his intoxicated son-in-law broke into Mr. Woollards home and threatened the family. The state renewed Mr. Woollards permit in 2006, shortly after the son-in-law was released from prison, but it refused to do so three years later after concluding Mr. Woollard could no longer prove he needed the permit for self-protection. Mr. Woollard sued, arguing that the states licensing scheme stomped on his Second Amendment rights.

Judge Legg agreed, building on the 2008 Supreme Court decision that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. The court emphasized the saliency of the right especially in the home and especially for self-defense. Judge Legg concluded that the Constitution and the high courts holding must also be read to protect an individuals right to carry weapons outside the home. Marylands good and substantial requirement impermissibly infringed on that right, he said.

A citizen may not be required to offer a good and substantial reason why he should be permitted to exercise his rights, Judge Legg concluded. The rights existence is all the reason he needs.

Maryland will appeal, as it should. Judge Legg makes a serious argument that the Maryland law impermissibly burdens the individual with proving he is entitled to exercise his rights; the burden should be on the government to show why an individual should be stripped of that right.

But the state has a duty to protect public safety, and careful oversight of who can walk around with lethal weapons may be a legitimate component of that. Judge Legg too quickly dismisses as a rationing scheme the states compelling interest in maintaining order in the public arena. Second Amendment rights should be respected, but public safety need not be thrown out in the process.

Excerpt from:
Editorial Board: The right of protection