Category Archives: Second Amendment

These are unprecedented times. No president has intentionally failed to protect this country from invasion until now. Previous to this time, all political parties would have supported impeachment to rid themselves of this major threat to national security.

The Joe Biden administration pretends there is no border crisis as a million and a half unvetted invaders coming from at least 150 countries have illegally crossed into the United States during his time in office. America has no southern border. Biden has never been on the border and shows no interest in upholding any of the long-established laws regarding it, while narcotics and sex traffickers flow freely through. Presently, Florida is suing Biden for human trafficking as his administration purposely flies or buses illegals into our cities nationwide.

All this on a border that was more secure under the Trump administration, largely by building a wall, than at any time in our history. Even now we know of 60,000 illegals, mostly Haitians, approaching our border to overwhelm our border patrol and invade our states, counties and cities. This would be the second Haitian invasion in six weeks and the Biden administration has no announced plans to deter them and, in fact, by negligence encourages their coming.

Does the Constitution allow this? No! Article IV, Section 4, specifically guarantees each state protection "against invasion." When taking office, the president swears by oath "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" (Article II, Section I, Clause 8). His primary function is to execute the laws passed by Congress: "He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" (Article II, Section III). He refuses! His administration is the greatest threat to the Constitution in U.S. history.

What is the country's recourse when its chief executor openly defies established immigration laws, engages in human trafficking of illegals into the interior and refuses the primary duty of his office to protect the nation? An unsecured border is America's biggest national threat. The answer is not to wait three-plus years for another "fraudulent" election; there will be no America left to save. Nor is it the 25th Amendment, as Kamala Harris appears no more fit for the office than Biden -- especially on the subject of illegal immigration. Nor is it impeachment, as the House of Representatives, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, constitutionally charged with initiating this process will defy this part of the Constitution as well.

Until one of these options is activated, removing him, the only remaining constitutional option and answer is that the states must secure their own borders. Remember, under federalism, implemented by the Constitution, we operate under two co-equal governments -- federal and state, the federal to govern primarily foreign policy, the state entirely internal interests. Should the federal government refuse to protect the border, an open border translates into a state issue one foot inside.

Arguably a state, with Biden opposition, cannot order federal agencies to protect it from an invasion, but it can use the state militia without his authority. The militia is not the army. It is the people, the citizens; and in the Second Continental Congress, even before the Constitution, the militia was defined as every able-bodied male 17 years of age and older.

In 1903, the Dick Act clarified the Second Amendment definition of militia by dividing it into Part A, the unorganized militia, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed," and Part B, "a well regulated Militia," the National Guard. Both "being necessary to the security of a free State." The organized militia was to remain a separate body from the army and navy and retain its distinct internal function and control under the state legislatures and governors (when they could not be convened) "against domestic violence" (Article IV, Section 4). Notice the wording in the Constitution authorizing Congress, "to provide for calling for the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" -- all internal functions (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15). Congress and state legislatures can call it forth.

Unlike the army, the militia is allowed to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, including, with state authorization, domestic violence. The Posse Comitatus Act forbids the military these internal functions.

The National Guard was never to be thought of as merely a pool of reserve troops for the army. Impeachment proceedings should have been threatened against President George W. Bush when he treated them as such, deploying 100,000 of them in 2005 to Iraq and Afghanistan when enlistments were not enough rather than asking Congress to restore the draft. This alteration of the Constitution by blatant ignorance is serious. The National Guard was simply an easy target and no one from either party objected. But it cannot perform its constitutional duty outside the United States. President Barack Obama ordered one-year deployments of Guardsmen in Afghanistan in 2014. Both parties have violated this part of the Constitution.

The rationale for a militia separate from the army is very simple. The first line of defense from unwanted aggression is oneself (Second Amendment), followed by local law enforcement agents, followed by the National Guard guarding the nation from within (Second Amendment), followed by the military. Biden, by unconstitutionally flying or busing illegals into the interior rather than vetting them fully in Mexico, should motivate all state legislatures to send their Guardsmen to the border immediately. Placing them on the border to repel the coming Haitian invasion would be entirely constitutional. It would also help discourage future invasions.

Harold W. Pease, Ph.D., is an expert on the United States Consitution and a syndicated columnist. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for more than 30 years. To read more of his weekly articles, visit http://www.LibertyUnderFire.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.

More:
OPINION: If the executive branch refuses to protect America, the states must - Westside Eagle Observer

I'm delighted to report that Stephen Halbrook, a leading firearms law litigator and scholar, will be guest-blogging this week about the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and in particular about N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, which is now pending before the Supreme Court. Halbrook has written over 30 law review articles and several books on the Second Amendment and firearms law more broadly, including, most recently, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right of the People or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?; those works have been cited in more than 20 court cases and 500 law review articles.

He has also litigated extensively in the field, often representing groups such as the NRA, National African American Gun Association, Western States Sheriffs' Association, Congress of Racial Equality, and more. He has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in Castillo v. U.S. (2000), Printz v. U.S. (1997), and U.S. v. Thompson/Center Arms Co. (1992), as well as in front of many other courts. I very much look forward to his posts!

See the original post here:
Stephen Halbrook Guest-Blogging About the Second Amendment and Public Carry of Firearms - Reason

The Supreme Courts ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, expected by mid-2022, could declare a New York state restriction on carrying concealed handguns in public places unconstitutional.

Such a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, which include a National Rifle Association affiliate, could loosen gun regulations in many parts of the country.

In my view as a Second Amendment scholar, this case is also noteworthy in that how the court reaches its conclusion could affect the Second Amendment analysis of all weapons laws in the future. The court is set to hear oral arguments on Nov. 3.

In 1911, after an increase in homicides, New York instituted a handgun permitting system. In 1913, the permitting system was amended to address concealed carrying.

For more than a century, someone seeking to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense in the state has needed to file a permit application showing that they have what the law calls proper cause.

To obtain an unrestricted permit, applicants must demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community, such as by showing they are being stalked.

New Yorks attorneys defend this restrictive approach to issuing concealed carry permits as an effective means to reduce gun violence. In 2020, there were 43,592 gun deaths in the United States, including suicides and homicides. There are also over 80,000 non-fatal firearm injuries each year.

New York has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and its homicide rate is below the national average.

Robert Nash and Brandon Koch were denied unrestricted concealed carry permits because a judge determined that they did not satisfy New Yorks proper-cause standard.

Instead, Koch was issued a license to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense while traveling to and from work. Both plaintiffs licenses also permit them to carry concealed handguns for hunting and target practice, and for self-defense in areas not frequented by the general public.

Along with the NRAs New York affiliate, Nash and Koch contend that these limitations on their ability to carry a concealed handgun violate their right to bear arms. They assert a broad view of the right to carry a handgun, one that extends virtually whenever and wherever the need for self-defense might arise.

New Yorks law defies that conception of the Second Amendment.

In considering Bruen, the Supreme Court will focus on the meaning of an important precedent: District of Columbia v. Heller.

When the Supreme Court issued its Heller ruling in 2008, a 5-4 majority struck down Washington, D.C.s ban on the possession of handguns in the home. The court held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to keep and bear arms.

Writing for the majority, the late Justice Antonin Scalia declared that the central component of the Second Amendment was not a well regulated militia, but rather the inherent right of self-defense.

But the majoritys decision included cautionary language that lower-court judges have since relied on to uphold gun laws.

The right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited and is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose, Scalia wrote. His opinion even contained a list of presumptively lawful regulatory measures, such as restrictions on the possession of firearms by felons or bans on carrying them in sensitive places like schools and government buildings.

The NRA and other gun rights supporters have bristled at the general acceptance by judges of the constitutionality of laws restricting firearm use.

That discontent culminated in Bruen.

If the court strikes down New Yorks law, Americans in eight states could expect an increase in the number of people legally carrying handguns in their communities. Anyone who wants to carry a concealed handgun would have an easier time doing so.

Bruen could also be a turning point for how judges evaluate all Second Amendment cases whether theyre about assault weapons, Tasers or felon-in-possession offenses.

Until now, judges have generally assessed whether such restrictions are justified by current public safety concerns.

Many gun rights advocates are asking the Supreme Court to reject that approach. Instead, they want judges to decide cases on the sole basis of history and tradition unless the judiciarys interpretation of the text of the Second Amendment resolves the issue. This is known as the text, history and tradition test.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh is credited with first articulating this test in a dissent he issued prior to his rise to the Supreme Court.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett all have embraced similar judicial philosophies to some degree.

But theres a catch: Guns have always been regulated in America.

New Yorks regulation has been on the books for over a century and had a legacy that extended back even farther.

If the justices abandon a conventional approach for the text, history and tradition test, I would expect a new round of lawsuits over weapons laws that have already survived prior court challenges. Gun rights advocates would likely, for example, sue over restrictions on large-capacity magazines or safe storage requirements in places where those issues have already been resolved.

This litigation would call on judges to rule on the sole basis of a difficult historical exercise: comparing modern laws addressing modern guns and contemporary gun violence to the laws, practices and weapons of a bygone era.

The court has three main options.

It could uphold New Yorks law. It could strike it down. Or it could find a middle ground, such as issuing a narrow ruling that punts big questions about gun restrictions down the road.

Chief Justice John Roberts has steered his colleagues toward narrow rulings before. But he will hold little sway if the three justices former President Donald Trump appointed team up with Samuel Alito and Thomas, the courts two other conservatives, on a far-reaching majority opinion.

Trump conferred with the NRA before nominating Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett all of whom received the gun groups blessing.

The ruling will underscore the significance of their presence on the court.

Ruben is an assistant professor of law at Southern Methodist University. This piece was originally published by the Conversation.

Read the rest here:
Opinion: Respect the Second Amendment history and tradition, of regulating gun ownership - Houston Chronicle

WASHINGTON, D.C. U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Mike Braun (R-Ind.), Roger Marshall (R-Kansas), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), and Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) today introduced a bill to bring parity to gun owners using public lands.

The Recreational Lands Defense Act would restore Second Amendment rights of individuals recreating on lands managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Under current law, an individual may carry a firearm on lands managed by the U.S. Department of Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture, including National Parks and National Forests, as long as it is consistent with state law.

The Recreational Lands Defense Act would treat Army Corps land in the same manner, allowing parity on nearly 12 million acres of Army Corps recreation lands. It would not change current legal prohibition of guns in federal facilities.

Upon introduction, Sen. Cruz said:

I am proud to join Sen. Crapo on this bill to restrict federal overreach and restore Second Amendment rights for law-abiding gun owners on land controlled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This bill protects the right to bear arms on this public, federally owned land as long as it is consistent with state law a right that should never have been removed from Texans and Americans in the first place.

Sen. Crapo said:

The inability to carry firearms on Corps land is inconsistent with regulations governing public, federally-owned lands, and a violation of the intent of the Second Amendment. Americans to carry firearms on land managed by the Corps will allow law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and provide needed consistency across federal lands to reduce the complexity of tracking where one federal agencys land management ends and anothers begins.

Sen. Risch said:

The federal prohibition preventing individuals from exercising their Second Amendment rights on U.S. Army Corps land is inconsistent and unconstitutional. Arbitrary regulations based on often unmarked jurisdictional boundaries do nothing but punish law-abiding citizens. This bill will restore the right to bear arms for sportsmen and women recreating on some 12 million acres of federal lands.

Sen. Scott said:

Im a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and take seriously governments role in protecting Americans constitutional right to keep and bear arms. This bill makes a commonsense fix to current law to allow Americans to exercise their constitutional rights on federally-managed Army Corps land.

Sen. Tillis said:

We must recognize that the right to bear arms should include Army Corps of Engineers lands. The law currently states that law-abiding gun owners may carry in National Parks and National Forests, but does not extend these same protections to lands owned by the Army Corps. I am proud to work with my colleagues to correct this problem and ensure that the Second Amendment is protected on public lands.

Sen. Braun said:

It is long overdue that we remove the unnecessary federal restriction on state law and align federal policy to allow Americans to express their Second Amendment rights on Corps land. The Recreational Lands Self Defense Act will do just that by aligning firearm policy on Corps land with the Department of the Interior precedent.

Sen. Marshal said:

Almost 50 years ago, Americans Constitutional right to bear arms on land under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was stripped by the federal government. This legislation restores our Second Amendment rights on public lands overseen by the Army Corps, leaving the American peoples ability to carry a firearm for self-defense or recreational purposes to the discretion of state and local governments protecting law abiding gun owners from further federal overreach.

Sen. Barrasso said:

Every day, people across Wyoming responsibly use their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Our legislation will make sure people in Wyoming and other public land states can exercise these constitutionally protected rights on lands managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Sen. Lummis added:

For decades, Americans Second Amendment rights have been checked at the entrance to federal land under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers management. Nearly 50 percent of Wyoming is federal land, and restoring this constitutional right is long overdue. Im proud to work with Senators Mike Crapo, John Barrasso, and other colleagues to end this ridiculous infringement of Americans liberties.

Read more from the original source:
Senators introduce bill to protect Second Amendments rights on federal land - The Highland County Press

Posted Oct 8, 2021, 9:21 am

Eric RubenSouthern Methodist University/The Conversation

The stakes in one of the most significant Second Amendment cases in U.S. history are high.

The Supreme Courts ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen,expected by mid-2022, could declare a New York state restriction oncarrying concealed handguns in public places unconstitutional.

Such a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, which include a NationalRifle Association affiliate, could loosen gun regulations in many partsof the country.

In my view as a Second Amendment scholar,this case is also noteworthy in that how the court reaches itsconclusion could affect the Second Amendment analysis of all weaponslaws in the future.

The court is set to hear oral arguments on Nov. 3.

In 1911, after an increase in homicides, New York instituted ahandgun permitting system. In 1913, the permitting system was amended toaddress concealed carrying.

For more than a century, someone seeking to carry a concealed handgunfor self-defense in the state has needed to file a permit applicationshowing that they have what the law calls proper cause.

To obtain an unrestricted permit, applicants mustdemonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable fromthat of the general community, such as by showing they are beingstalked.

New Yorks attorneys defend this restrictive approach to issuingconcealed carry permits as an effective means to reduce gun violence. In2020, there were 43,592 gun deaths in the United States, including suicides and homicides. There are also over 80,000 non-fatal firearm injuries each year.

New York has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and its homicide rate is below the national average.

Robert Nash and Brandon Kochwere denied unrestricted concealed carry permits because a judgedetermined that they did not satisfy New Yorks proper-cause standard.

Instead, Koch was issued a licenseto carry a concealed handgun for self-defense while traveling to andfrom work. Both plaintiffs licenses also permit them to carry concealedhandguns for hunting and target practice, and for self-defense in areasnot frequented by the general public.

Along with the NRAs New York affiliate, Nash and Koch contend thatthese limitations on their ability to carry a concealed handgun violatetheir right to bear arms. They assert a broad view of the right to carrya handgun, one that extends virtually whenever and wherever the need for self-defense might arise.

New Yorks law defies that conception of the Second Amendment.

In considering Bruen, the Supreme Court will focus on the meaning of an important precedent: District of Columbia v. Heller.

When the Supreme Court issued its Heller ruling in 2008, a 5-4majority struck down Washington, D.C.s ban on the possession ofhandguns in the home. The court held for the first time that the SecondAmendment protects an individuals right to keep and bear arms.

Writing for the majority, the late Justice Antonin Scalia declaredthat the central component of the Second Amendment was not a well regulated Militia, but rather the inherent right of self-defense.

But the majoritys decision included cautionary language that lower-court judges have since relied on to uphold gun laws.

The right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited and isnot a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any mannerwhatsoever and for whatever purpose, Scalia wrote. His opinion evencontained a list of presumptively lawful regulatory measures, such asrestrictions on the possession of firearms by felons or bans on carryingthem in sensitive places like schools and government buildings.

The NRA and other gun rights supporters have bristled at the general acceptance by judges of the constitutionality of laws restricting firearm use.

That discontent culminated in Bruen.

In 1980, most Americans lived in places that either banned concealed carry or had a New York-style proper cause permitting regime. An NRA push beginning in the late 1980s loosened public carry laws around the country.

In states where gun rights advocates possess relatively little clout,they hope that Bruen will accomplish through the courts what they havefailed to accomplish through the political process.

Today, New York is one of eight statesrequiring that people seeking to carry concealed handguns have aproper or good cause. California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland,Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island have similar laws on thebooks.

If the court strikes down New Yorks law, Americans in those statescould expect an increase in the number of people legally carryinghandguns in their communities. Anyone who wants to carry a concealedhandgun would have an easier time doing so.

Bruen could also be a turning point for how judges evaluate allSecond Amendment cases whether theyre about assault weapons, tasersor felon-in-possession offenses.

Until now, judges have generally assessed whether such restrictions are justified by current public safety concerns.

Many gun rights advocates are asking the Supreme Court to reject thatapproach. Instead, they want judges to decide cases on the sole basis of history and traditionunless the judiciarys interpretation of the text of the SecondAmendment resolves the issue. This is known as the text, history andtradition test.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh is credited with first articulating this test in a dissent he issued prior to his rise to the Supreme Court.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett all have embraced similar judicial philosophies to some degree.

But theres a catch: Guns have always been regulated in America.

New Yorks regulation has been on the books for over a century and had a legacy that extended back even further.

If the justices abandon a conventional approach for the text, historyand tradition test, I would expect a new round of lawsuits over weaponslaws that have already survived prior court challenges. Gun rightsadvocates would likely, for example, sue over restrictions on large-capacity magazines or safe storage requirements in places where those issues have already been resolved.

This litigation would call on judges to rule on the sole basis of a difficult historical exercise: comparing modern laws addressing modern guns and contemporary gun violence to the laws, practices and weapons of a bygone era.

The court has three main options.

It could uphold New Yorks law. It could strike it down. Or it could find a middle ground, such as issuing a narrow ruling that punts big questions about gun restrictions down the road.

Chief Justice John Roberts has steered his colleagues toward narrow rulings before.But he will hold little sway if the three justices former PresidentDonald Trump appointed team up with Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas,the courts two other conservatives, on a far-reaching majority opinion.

Trump conferred with the NRA before nominating Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett all of whom received the gun groups blessing.

The ruling will underscore the significance of their presence on the court.

Assistant Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University

- 30 -

View post:
First major 2nd Amendment case before the Supreme Court in over a decade could topple gun restrictions | Analysis - TucsonSentinel.com

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

See more here:
Montpelier City Council a resolution to protect constitutional rights and second amendment - The Herald Journal

Dare County commissioners took up three planning items on Monday, October 4, approving a special use permit for a new fish house in Hatteras village and scheduling two public hearings.

The commissioners approved a special use permit for Jeffery Aiken to build a commercial fish house and docking facility on Back Creek, 57162 Altona Lane in Hatteras village. The 5,625 square foot building will process, package, distribute and sell seafood to meet the growing demand for sustainably-sourced North Carolina seafood.

Conditions address lighting, driveways, parking and fencing abutting residential use. The hours for the retail sales operation are 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., seven days a week.

This is a plus to see an expansion of a fishing center, said Robert L. Woodard, chairman of the Board of Commissioners.

On Oct. 18 at 5 p.m., two public hearings will be held. Both requests come from Joe Thompson, founder of Koru Village in Avon, and both requests would apply to unincorporated Dare County.

Requested are a zoning text amendment concerning food trucks and a change that deals with buffer requirements in the travel trailer and campground ordinance.

In 2018, the countys zoning ordinance was amended to allow mobile food units with certain conditions, such as one mobile unit per location on a site with an existing commercial business.

Thompson is requesting that multiple food trucks be permitted in one location, to create a food court.

The zoning code changes under consideration are:

A maximum of five mobile food units on a site with an existing commercial use.

Units are to be separated by 10 feet for safety.

Portable toilets shall not be used to meet a requirement for restrooms if outside seating is provided.

A maximum of eight outdoor seats for each mobile and non-mobile food stand.

If existing business parking cannot be used, then 10 parking spaces for the first mobile food truck plus no more than two additional spaces for each unit are required, but can be waived by the planning director, states the proposed zoning code changes. Ten parking spaces are required for non-mobile food stands.

Permitted hours of operation are 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., seven days a week.

A second amendment concerns buffers required by the travel trailer and campground ordinance. The current ordinance permits only vegetative buffers.

Thompson is asking for flexibility in an already approved 20-site campground at the Avon Pier. One perimeter adjoins a septic system which will be harmed by growing vegetation. Another area is between parking for the Avon Pier and the campground sites.

Thompson wants to install a six-foot privacy fence between the pier parking and campground and to leave the septic system area grassed.

Under the proposed change, flexibility in buffer standards is provided. The change would permit six-foot high fencing with a finished side to the public side and permit vegetation or solid fencing for the buffer. Buffers are not required along estuarine or ocean shorelines.

READ ABOUT MORE NEWS HERE.

RECENT HEADLINES:

Still time to vote for your Outer Banks favorites in the Coastland Gold 2021 Peoples Choice Awards

Ocracoke Express carries over 16k passengers in 2021 season

Link:
Dare commissioners approve new fish house; set hearings on food trucks, buffers - The Coastland Times | The Coastland Times - The Coastland Times

WASHINGTON Ordinarily staid and silent Supreme Court justices have become whirling dervishes of late, spinning madly to rebut the idea that Americans are beginning to regard the court as a dangerous cabal of partisan hacks.

They need not fret and wring their hands. No one is beginning to think that.

Many of us have thought that for a long time.

Supremes are often Shakespeare fans, so of course they are familiar with the phrase doth protest too much, methinks.

The once august courts approval ratings on fairness were already falling two decades ago. The bloom came off the robe in 2000, when the court threw the game on Bush v. Gore, voting 5 to 4 to stop the Florida recount and anoint a Republican president.

If we conjure an alternative-history look at America, consider all the things that the Supreme Court brought down on our heads by pre-emptively purloining that victory for George W. Bush: two interminable and inexplicable wars, costing so many lives and so many trillions; a descent into torture; the villainous Dick Cheney.

As some on Twitter noted, our 20 years of quicksand in Afghanistan was capped Friday with this headline: Son of Afghanistans Former Defense Minister Buys $20.9 Million Beverly Hills Mansion.

Al Gore, mocked as Ozone Man by Bush senior, certainly would have tried to head off the biblical floods and fires engulfing our country.

The right-wing justices may as well embrace their reputation for hackery. Because in this blockbuster year, when the conservative court begins debating abortion and the Second Amendment, one thing is certain: They are going to make rulings that will drive people crazy, rulings that will be out of sync with what most Americans believe.

So please, conservative cabal, dont pretend youre not doing this out of ideology.

And please, Justice Breyer, skedaddle. Youre playing a dangerous game. You need to get out of there because it looks as if the midterms are going to be bad, and if the Democrats lose the Senate majority, theres no guarantee that Mitch McConnell will let any Biden nominee onto the court, even with two years left on the presidents term. Do you want the court to be 7 to 2?

Listen to those Democrats who are warning that staying would be irresponsible and egotistical. Dont make the colossal mistake that Ruth Bader Ginsburg did, ignoring entreaties from top Democrats and hints from the Obama White House to leave in a timely way and hanging on so long that the worst possible outcome happened: That remarkable feminists seat went to the ferociously anti-abortion Lady Handmaids Tale, who is trying to cancel out R.B.G.s legacy.

And please, America, can we have term limits? Justices should not be on the court for 30 years, or into their late 80s.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who did not want the court to be seen as too extreme, has lost control because there are five more rabid conservatives running over him.

Donald Trumps ability to get three conservatives on the court, thanks to McConnell, will turn out to be the most consequential part of his miserable presidency. And the minority leader is about to get his reward in the form of a bunch of conservative rulings.

The beauty of it for McConnell is that the court is going to do his dirty work for him. Republicans dont want to vote to roll back abortion rights because they know its not popular and they dont want their fingerprints on it. Theyd prefer the court do it.

Linda Greenhouse, who has a book coming out called Justice on the Brink, had a piece in The Times summing up why it is brutal for our democracy to have institutions so out of step with majority views in the country: Three polls within the past month show that fewer than a third of Americans want to see the court overturn Roe v. Wade. Yet it appears that only a third of the justices can be counted on to preserve the right to abortion as defined by the courts current precedents. So unlucky women in red states are going back to back-alley days?

As The Timess Adam Liptak said on The Daily, the Supreme Court might tinker with Roe v. Wade, or it might take an option that will be attractive to the most conservative members of the court, the one that gives rise to the headline Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade, which would be a big news day. He also noted that the reason justices are so sensitive now is that the authority of the Supreme Court its a little hard to know where it comes from. Sure, its in the Constitution, but they dont have an army, they dont have the power of the purse. Its not entirely clear why we do what the Supreme Court tells us to do.

Ignore the charade of the parade of justices protesting that they are pure and neutral. Nobodys buying it. We all know its a disaster if the countrys going one way and the courts going the other.

The Least Dangerous Branch, as the court was once known, has become the Most Dangerous Branch.

Read more:
Opinion | The Supreme Court v. Reality - The New York Times

The stakes in one of the most significant Second Amendment cases in U.S. history are high.

The Supreme Courts ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, expected by mid-2022, could declare a New York state restriction on carrying concealed handguns in public places unconstitutional.

Such a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, which include a National Rifle Association affiliate, could loosen gun regulations in many parts of the country.

In my view as a Second Amendment scholar, this case is also noteworthy in that how the court reaches its conclusion could affect the Second Amendment analysis of all weapons laws in the future.

The court is set to hear oral arguments on Nov. 3.

In 1911, after an increase in homicides, New York instituted a handgun permitting system. In 1913, the permitting system was amended to address concealed carrying.

For more than a century, someone seeking to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense in the state has needed to file a permit application showing that they have what the law calls proper cause.

To obtain an unrestricted permit, applicants must demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community, such as by showing they are being stalked.

New Yorks attorneys defend this restrictive approach to issuing concealed carry permits as an effective means to reduce gun violence. In 2020, there were 43,592 gun deaths in the United States, including suicides and homicides. There are also over 80,000 non-fatal firearm injuries each year.

New York has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and its homicide rate is below the national average.

Robert Nash and Brandon Koch were denied unrestricted concealed carry permits because a judge determined that they did not satisfy New Yorks proper-cause standard.

Instead, Koch was issued a license to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense while traveling to and from work. Both plaintiffs licenses also permit them to carry concealed handguns for hunting and target practice, and for self-defense in areas not frequented by the general public.

Along with the NRAs New York affiliate, Nash and Koch contend that these limitations on their ability to carry a concealed handgun violate their right to bear arms. They assert a broad view of the right to carry a handgun, one that extends virtually whenever and wherever the need for self-defense might arise.

New Yorks law defies that conception of the Second Amendment.

In considering Bruen, the Supreme Court will focus on the meaning of an important precedent: District of Columbia v. Heller.

When the Supreme Court issued its Heller ruling in 2008, a 5-4 majority struck down Washington, D.C.s ban on the possession of handguns in the home. The court held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to keep and bear arms.

Writing for the majority, the late Justice Antonin Scalia declared that the central component of the Second Amendment was not a well regulated Militia, but rather the inherent right of self-defense.

But the majoritys decision included cautionary language that lower-court judges have since relied on to uphold gun laws.

The right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited and is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose, Scalia wrote. His opinion even contained a list of presumptively lawful regulatory measures, such as restrictions on the possession of firearms by felons or bans on carrying them in sensitive places like schools and government buildings.

The NRA and other gun rights supporters have bristled at the general acceptance by judges of the constitutionality of laws restricting firearm use.

That discontent culminated in Bruen.

In 1980, most Americans lived in places that either banned concealed carry or had a New York-style proper cause permitting regime. An NRA push beginning in the late 1980s loosened public carry laws around the country.

In states where gun rights advocates possess relatively little clout, they hope that Bruen will accomplish through the courts what they have failed to accomplish through the political process.

Today, New York is one of eight states requiring that people seeking to carry concealed handguns have a proper or good cause. California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island have similar laws on the books.

If the court strikes down New Yorks law, Americans in those states could expect an increase in the number of people legally carrying handguns in their communities. Anyone who wants to carry a concealed handgun would have an easier time doing so.

Bruen could also be a turning point for how judges evaluate all Second Amendment cases whether theyre about assault weapons, tasers or felon-in-possession offenses.

Until now, judges have generally assessed whether such restrictions are justified by current public safety concerns.

Many gun rights advocates are asking the Supreme Court to reject that approach. Instead, they want judges to decide cases on the sole basis of history and tradition unless the judiciarys interpretation of the text of the Second Amendment resolves the issue. This is known as the text, history and tradition test.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh is credited with first articulating this test in a dissent he issued prior to his rise to the Supreme Court.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett all have embraced similar judicial philosophies to some degree.

But theres a catch: Guns have always been regulated in America.

New Yorks regulation has been on the books for over a century and had a legacy that extended back even further.

If the justices abandon a conventional approach for the text, history and tradition test, I would expect a new round of lawsuits over weapons laws that have already survived prior court challenges. Gun rights advocates would likely, for example, sue over restrictions on large-capacity magazines or safe storage requirements in places where those issues have already been resolved.

This litigation would call on judges to rule on the sole basis of a difficult historical exercise: comparing modern laws addressing modern guns and contemporary gun violence to the laws, practices and weapons of a bygone era.

The court has three main options.

It could uphold New Yorks law. It could strike it down. Or it could find a middle ground, such as issuing a narrow ruling that punts big questions about gun restrictions down the road.

Chief Justice John Roberts has steered his colleagues toward narrow rulings before. But he will hold little sway if the three justices former President Donald Trump appointed team up with Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, the courts two other conservatives, on a far-reaching majority opinion.

Trump conferred with the NRA before nominating Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett all of whom received the gun groups blessing.

The ruling will underscore the significance of their presence on the court.

[Understand whats going on in Washington. Sign up for The Conversations Politics Weekly.]

The rest is here:
First major Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court in over a decade could topple gun restrictions - The Conversation US

October 06, 2021

Washington, D.C.--U.S. Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) led nine Republican colleagues in introducing legislation that would bring parity to gun owners using public lands. The Recreational Lands Self Defense Act would restore Second Amendment rights of individuals recreating on lands managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Co-sponsors of the legislation include Senators Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Rick Scott (R-Florida), Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina), Mike Braun (R-Indiana), Roger Marshall (R-Kansas), John Barrasso (R-Wyoming), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Mike Rounds (R-South Dakota) and Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming).

The inability to carry firearms on Corps land is inconsistent with regulations governing public, federally-owned lands, and a violation of the intent of the Second Amendment said Senator Crapo. Enabling Americans to carry firearms on land managed by the Corps will allow law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and provide needed consistency across federal lands to reduce the complexity of tracking where one federal agencys land management ends and anothers begins.

The federal prohibition preventing individuals from exercising their Second Amendment rights on U.S. Army Corps land is inconsistent and unconstitutional, said Senator Risch. Arbitrary regulations based on often unmarked jurisdictional boundaries do nothing but punish law-abiding citizens. This bill will restore the right to bear arms for sportsmen and women recreating on some 12 million acres of federal lands.

Im a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and take seriously governments role in protecting Americans constitutional right to keep and bear arms, said Senator Rick Scott. This bill makes a commonsense fix to current law to allow Americans to exercise their constitutional rights on federally-managed Army Corps land.

We must recognize that the right to bear arms should include Army Corps of Engineers lands, said Senator Tillis. The law currently states that law-abiding gun owners may carry in National Parks and National Forests, but does not extend these same protections to lands owned by the Army Corps. I am proud to work with my colleagues to correct this problem and ensure that the Second Amendment is protected on public lands.

It is long overdue that we remove the unnecessary federal restriction on state law and align federal policy to allow Americans to express their Second Amendment rights on Corps land, said Senator Braun. The Recreational Lands Self Defense Act will do just that by aligning firearm policy on Corps land with the Department of the Interior precedent.

Almost 50 years ago, Americans Constitutional right to bear arms on land under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was stripped by the federal government, said Senator Marshall. This legislation restores our Second Amendment rights on public lands overseen by the Army Corps, leaving the American peoples ability to carry a firearm for self-defense or recreational purposes to the discretion of state and local governments protecting law abiding gun owners from further federal overreach.

Every day, people across Wyoming responsibly use their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, said Senator Barrasso. Our legislation will make sure people in Wyoming and other public land states can exercise these constitutionally protected rights on lands managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

I am proud to join Sen. Crapo on this bill to restrict federal overreach and restore Second Amendment rights for law-abiding gun owners on land controlled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, said Senator Cruz. This bill protects the right to bear arms on this public, federally owned land as long as it is consistent with state law a right that should never have been removed from Texans and Americans in the first place.

For decades, Americans Second Amendment rights have been checked at the entrance to federal land under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers management, said Senator Lummis. Nearly 50 percent of Wyoming is federal land, and restoring this constitutional right is long overdue. Im proud to work with Senators Mike Crapo, John Barrasso, and other colleagues to end this ridiculous infringement of Americans liberties.

Under current law, an individual may carry a firearm on lands managed by the U.S. Department of Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture, including National Parks and National Forests, as long as it is consistent with state law. The Recreational Lands Defense Act would treat Army Corps land in the same manner, allowing parity on nearly 12 million acres of Army Corps recreation lands. It would not change current legal prohibition of guns in federal facilities.

Full text of the bill can be found here.

###

Read more:
Crapo Leads Introduction of Legislation to Protect Second Amendment Rights on Federal Land | US Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho - Senator Mike Crapo