Category Archives: Second Amendment

A man whose conviction for holding an unloaded shotgun in his home while drunk was upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court is taking his case to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

The case is State v. Weber, which as has been noted on our site, "involves a situation where despite the defendants wife telling police there was no longer a problem, they pressed their way in. There they found her admittedly inebriated but nonthreatening husband who, while he did have a shotgun, told police it was not loaded, which they proved for themselves."

Weber was charged with violating R.C. 2923.15(A), which states: No person, while under the influence of alcohol or drugs of abuse, shall carry or use any firearm or dangerous ordnance.

After a bench trial, Weber was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days in jail with all 10 days suspended. He also was placed on community control for one year, ordered to complete eight hours of community service, and fined $100.

When the Twelfth District Court of Appeals court upheld his conviction, it ruled as follows:

Furthermore, R.C.2923.15 does not, as suggested by appellant, criminalize the mere presence of a firearm in the home of an intoxicated person. Nor does the statute, as suggested by appellant, prohibit a person from carrying or using a firearm after consuming alcoholic beverages. Rather, the statute only prohibits the use or carrying of a firearm by a person who has imbibed to the point of intoxication.

Mr. Weber appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, and that body narrowly ruled against him as well.

In a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sharon L. Kennedy and Judith L. French, Justice Patrick F. Fischer write that courts have been divided about the proper way to test the constitutionality of firearm laws since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision in 2008. He observed the Weber decision follows an interest-balancing test created by federal courts. He suggested Ohio adopt another approach that focuses on the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment to see if the challenged law or rule is consistent with the scope of the right as originally understood.

Justice Fischer also noted that state and federal courts would benefit from more clarity from SCOTUS on how to evaluate challenges to laws claiming to violate the Second Amendment. He wrote that instead of using the convoluted two-step approach, the Court should follow the Heller and McDonald decisions and look at the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment.

Justice Patrick DeWine concurred in the majority opinion, but also argued separately that the majority's analysis was not protective of Second Amendment rights because it "improperly applied an 'interest balancing' test rather than evaluate the challenged restriction based upon the original understanding of the Second Amendment," according to the court.

If Weber's petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court is granted, those calling for SCOTUS to provide clarity may get their wish. Weber is asking the court to determine the proper standard of constitutional review of a law that impacts the core value of the Second Amendment.

"The disagreement in the Ohio Supreme Court is emblematic of the confusion gripping the nation's lower courts," he wrote. "But confusion is not the only problem. The outcome of a wrongfully applied standard can significantly dilute the core protection of the Second Amendment."

As firearms rights advocate David Codrea wrote when covering this case for AmmoLand.com:

The point of intoxication, as defined by Ohios OVI laws is a Blood Alcohol Content of 0.08, or 0.02 if under 21. Significantly, a citizen old enough to serve in the military can reach that level after only one drink. And its fair to ask how many of us, especially with the holidays approaching, will be inclined to consume several adult beverages over the course of a family gathering. What if youre carrying, and not all blurry-eyed and speech-slurring like the hapless Mr. Weber was reported to be, but just right there at the legal limit for driving? Where is the compelling state interest to define that as the limit point?

...

"Still, this isnt a popular case for most 'gun rights' lobbying groups to make a big noise defendingwho wants to endure the optics of arguing guns for drunks? Regardless, the fact remains that there are already ways to deal with people who brandish, and who attack others with weapons. This isnt about public safety, its about another inroad to citizen disarmament. As for people who have proven they cant or wont control themselves, taking their tools but leaving them able to harm others is never the solution."

Chad D. Baus served as Buckeye Firearms Association Secretary from 2013-2019. He is co-founder of BFA-PAC, and served as its Vice Chairman for 15 years. He is the editor of BuckeyeFirearms.org, which received the Outdoor Writers of Ohio 2013 Supporting Member Award for Best Website, and is also an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

Related Articles:

Does Ohio Supreme Court ruling threaten right to bear arms in own home?

Gun and Alcohol Case Could Put Citizens at Risk in Their Own Homes

Link:
SCOTUS asked to take up State v. Weber, Ohio case with Second Amendment implications - Buckeye Firearms Association

The Friday, May 14 issue of The Alpena News contained a guest editorial by Jeffrey Brasie titled, On Americas Second Amendment.

Brasie states in the middle of the article I personally support the Second Amendment and the very next word he writes is However. You either support the 2A or you dont, no however or but.

The 2A was included in the Bill of Rights by our Founders specifically so that if faced with a tyrannical government or an outside threat the citizens could rise up and protect their freedom. There is no mention of hunting or sports use. The 2A states the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Check your copy of the Constitution and see how many times and how the word People is specifically used. The militia when the Constitution was written was every able-bodied citizen. Well-regulated meant that the citizens were supposed to supply themselves with adequate arms and supplies and be able to defend themselves and country. The citizens of that day owed arms equal to or better than many of the militaries of the time. It takes a lot of twisting to ignore the words shall not be infringed written in the 2A.

If you support what actions are being taken now to make the 2A an orphan Amendment as Justice Clarence Thomas calls it, lets look at voting. What ruckus would be raised if you were required to undergo a background check to vote; if you were required to attend and pass an educational program to vote; if you were required to undergo a mental examination to verify your fitness to vote; if your right to vote could be canceled simply on the word of a relative, neighbor, or acquaintance saying you werent fit to vote?

MIKE LOEW,

Rogers City

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Read more from the original source:
No 'howevers' or 'buts' with Second Amendment | News, Sports, Jobs - Alpena News

The Tuesday cartoon on the Opinion page was meant to be a satire on the Second Amendments well regulated militia but only served to keep the uninformed ignorant. More anti-gun laws dont accomplish a thing. This fact shown by cities that have the most stringent laws, yet have the highest homicide rates. More laws such as magazine capacity, caliber size,type of weapon, etc., only serve to legislatively turn law-abiding citizens into felons. Gun laws, as they currently stand, if administered and not pled down to lesser charges, would be sufficiently effective. Our founding fathers knew what they were doing when they wrote our Second Amendment. It is the ultimate defense against governmental tyranny. Perhaps a government that fears the people needs to be regulated themselves. It appears that many of our representatives have forgotten who is supposed to serve who.

Chet Burum, Bonny Doon

The Sentinel welcomes your letters to the editor. Letters should be short, no more than 150 words. We do not accept anonymous letters. Letter-writers should include their full name as well as a street address and telephone number. We dont publish those details in the newspaper, but need the information for verification purposes. Occasionally, we reject letters simply because weve had so many on the same subject. Submit your letters online atwww.santacruzsentinel.com/submit-letters.

See the original post:
Letter | Cartoon ignored meaning of Second Amendment - Santa Cruz Sentinel

OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) Second Amendment supporters held a rally at the Oklahoma State Capitol on Tuesday as the Sooner State moves another step closer to becoming what is referred to as a second amendment sanctuary.

The Oklahoma House of Representatives passed Senate Bill 631, the Second Amendment Sanctuary State Act, on Tuesday.

That legislation states that any order demanding the confiscation, buyback or surrender of firearms infringes upon Oklahomans Second Amendment rights.

Those at Tuesdays rally say their liberty is being infringed upon after President Joe Biden announced a crackdown on guns, issuing six executive orders aimed at curbing what he calls an epidemic following several recent mass shootings.

Oklahomans rallying at the State Capitol see the situation differently from Biden.

Theres a lot of language, a lot of liberty people are concerned about the federal government squeezing things down, and were here to let our legislators know we support them and we want them to protect us, said Don Spencer, president of the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association.

SB 631 now heads to Gov. Kevin Stitts desk.

The State Legislature has several active bills dealing directly with protecting gun-related rights.

Read more from the original source:
Oklahoma House of Reps passes Second Amendment Sanctuary State Act as pro-gun rally held at State Capitol - KFOR Oklahoma City

In Carl Scheuffeles letter Revise Second Amendment (Our Readers Views, April 19) he mentions hunting twice and implies that the reason for the adoption of the Second Amendment was the necessity of having a firearm to hunt with. This is an often-stated point by those who want to restrict or eliminate gun ownership. It is of course completely false. It is misdirection. The founders understood that any and all governments have the potential and even the tendency to devolve into tyranny. They thoughtfully put in place many checks and balances and safeguards to prevent and/or combat tyranny. The Second Amendment is one of those safeguards. It was never about hunting.

It is reasonable for us to have a discussion about gun ownership but let us stick to the facts and not invent history. In one way the United States is no more special than any other country on the planet. We have that potential to move toward tyranny when safeguards are removed. If we do not understand that we are one step closer to it happening.

Go here to see the original:
Letter: Second Amendment is a safeguard - The Columbian

I have known Jim Albert for many years, both as a magistrate and as Westmoreland County sheriff, and Ive always liked him. However, his recent letter to the editor (Second Amendment is absolute, April 3, TribLIVE) declaring I was wrong in my letter stating the Second Amendment is not absolute (Commissioners misguided on gun-rights resolution, March 21, TribLIVE) suggests he has never read Justice Antonin Scalias opinion in the Heller case, which held for the first time that the Second Amendment confers rights on the individual.

Scalias textualist approach was nonsense, virtually incomprehensible, but it became the law. Though the holding was silly, he nonetheless was very careful to point out that the Second Amendment is, indeed, not absolute, and even suggested that assault weapons can be lawfully banned. Perhaps Albert might want to consult with his solicitor before opining on the law.

I appeared before him as magistrate many times during my career as an attorney. We did not always agree, to be sure, but I always thought he strove to do the right thing. Alas, this is not the first time hed be wrong. It is also not the last time that Id be right.

David Millstein

Naples, Fla.

The writer is a former Westmoreland County resident and attorney for more than 50 years.

Read this article:
Letter to the editor: Scalia held that Second Amendment not absolute - TribLIVE

Im disappointed that the Westerly Town Council voted to object to a number of gun-control bills currently before the Rhode Island General Assembly. I think some of the bills are good and some are bad, but thats not the point. What I find disappointing is that their blanket objection is based on the idea that the bills potentially abridge our Second Amendment rights. First, violations of the Constitution are a matter for the federal courts, not town councils. They are also wrong to treat the Second Amendment like a sacred doctrine. The Second Amendment expresses the opinions of 18th-century intellectuals addressing an 18th-century political issue involving 18th-century weapons. It is not the inspired word of God.

The Second Amendments wording is so ambiguous that applying it to a specific situation is often impossible. The use of the word Militia had confounded legal scholars for decades. As written, it protects the ownership of any weapon: grenades, mortars, machine guns, etc.

We would be better off if the Second Amendment were strengthened by stating clearly that the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is an individual right. This was affirmed in the Supreme Courts Heller decision, but by a narrow 5-4 vote. But then, because modern weapons are so destructive, it should also clarify that some regulations are now necessary for the public good.

I am not anti-gun. I grew up in the Midwest and the South, the son of a World War II combat veteran. Ive been around firearms since childhood. I only think we should stop basing policies on an outdated 18th century document and focus on making our nation more secure.

Albert Gerheim

Westerly

The rest is here:
Letter: Stop basing policy on outdated 2nd Amendment - The Westerly Sun

Journalist Stephen Gutowski has dedicated his career to helping people understand a community that's long been a blind spot for the press: gun owners.

Now, Gutowskiis launchinga new subscription-based site, The Reload, where he looks to continue that mission by bringing his reporting and firearms expertise.

"It's a publication that's going to be focused on firearms reporting and analysis," Gutowski told Fox News. "It's going to be mainly focused on hard news reporting on firearms policy and politics and also culture, because these are areas that are largely overlooked and misunderstood by major media outlets."

BIDEN'S FALSE REMARKS ON GUN SHOW BACKGROUND CHECKS GETS A PASS FROM SOME FACT-CHECKERS

Stephen Gutowski has dedicated his career to helping people understand a community that's long been a blind spot for the press: gun owners. (Stephen Gutowski)

Gutowski has left the Washington Free Beacon after nearly seven years with the conservativeonline outlet, where he broke news onSecond Amendment battles, the National RifleAssociation, and national and state gun policies, among other issues. He also hosted a show, "Range Time," for its YouTube channel.

Gutowski saidhis work has been about "trying to help people understand the gun-owning community better, what it looks like, who's in it, why people own guns, what they do with them," and doesnt understand why the mainstream media doesnt employ experts on a subject that impacts millions of Americans.

"There isn't a single gun beat reporter at any major outlet outside of the Free Beacon, which was me," he said. "There aren't many publications that are focused on hard news reporting when it comes to firearms."

WARNOCK PUSHES GUN CONTROL BUT PAID OVER $100K TO PRIVATE SECURITY FIRM

Gutowski's move is part of a recent trend of prominent journalists leaving reputable publicationsto go independent.

The Free Beacon may have stood out among news outlets by having a reporter exclusively focused on the gun beat, but one of Gutowski'smost notable scoops also concerned the media. In 2016, he reported on a Katie Couric documentary that deceptively edited gun rights supporters to make them look dumbfounded by one of Couric's questions.

Gutowski, a certified firearms instructor, often works with major mainstream reporters behind the scenes to help them cover the topic better.

Stephen Gutowskiis launchinga new subscription-based site, The Reload. (Stephen Gutowski)

Gutowski feels his subscription-based model will thrive because of a combination of his expertise and the lack of any legitimate competition. He said manymajor media outlets employ reporters who understand the politics surrounding firearms but not guns themselves.

"Theres a big problem in our current media landscape when it comes to reporting on firearms. There just is, it's undeniable. There's a lot of mistakes that happen continually. And that's something that I don't think is acceptable," Gutowski said. "And that's something where I think I can fill a need with this new publication ... There's a lot of blind spots in major media over that stuff."

JUDGE ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO: JOE BIDEN AND GUNS

Gutowski tries to help fellow journalists whenever possible, often assisting in an attempt to limit misinformation about firearms. He said reporters from CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, the Washington Post, and elsewhere have sought his help.

"I applaud people who reach out to me for that reason and I'll always help. The problem is that, you know, one, I can't do it for every news story," Gutowski said.

However, Gutowski has noticed that not everyone isinterested in doing due diligence and getting the facts straight when reporting on the polarizing topic. He feels that most reporters want to be accurate but simply botch it, while some opinion pundits dont really care about getting it right and prefer to push a narrative.

TUCKER CARLSON: BIDEN WANTS TO TAKE YOUR GUNS, BUT LEAVE CRIMINALS WITH THEIRS

"You can see that over and over again in a number of mistakes, maybe basic stuff, you know, like the gun show issue with, know, pretending that gun shows have some sort of special exemption from federal background checks. But that's not at all how the system works," he said. "It hurts the reputation of the news industry you're misinforming a large number of Americans about firearms, how they work and the laws that govern them."

The Reload will cost subscribers $10 a month, but there are other options such as annual and lifetime memberships along with a launch sale. There will also be a free newsletter that rounds up major news on a weekly basis, and subscribers will receive a more elaborate newsletter with Gutowskis analysis.

Beyond typical coverage on issues like gun control bills and shootings, The Reloadwillexplore topics such as the rise infemalegun owners, why moreminorities arepurchasing guns and why average Americans own guns. Polling shows nearly half of Americans reporthavinga gun in their household.

"There is so much more going on," Gutowski said.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The Reload is now live and Gutowski expects to be targeted byliberal activists for simply providing nonpartisan coverage of firearms.

"They don't likewhat you're writing about. So I would expect to see something like that happen," he said. "It doesn't faze me."

See the original post:
The mainstream media's 'blind spot': Gun owners and the Second Amendment - Fox News

In response to Brian Isaacson (2nd Amendment protects other rights, Star-Advertiser, Letters, April 12), the Second Amendment states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

When this very terse statement was adopted in 1791, the United States was a newborn infant federation of loosely bound states still highly disorganized and trying to establish itself in the face of British tyranny. The militia of the founding era was the body of ordinary citizens capable of taking up arms to defend the nation; the intent was to augment the deficient, underfunded, poorly manned federal army that existed against future attacks from foreign aggressors.

A well regulated militia has become the National Guard in each state, not self-anointed, self-appointed domestic terrorists who hide behind the Second Amendment to carry out their random personal grievances.

Yes, there are many ways to prevent criminal behavior and they all need consideration, but the Second Amendment should be viewed through the lens of time and not misinterpreted and misapplied.

Kevin Johnson

Kaimuki

Think twice before firing top managers

I agree with Jennifer Chiwas deduction that the Police Commission was micromanaging Chief Susan Ballard with its improvement plan (Commission wrong to micromanage Ballard, Star-Advertiser, Letters, April 14). Most leaders work with the individual, not hand them a laundry list of what they think needs to be done.

I wonder how many of them could have handled 2020 any better than the chief? Was the commission trying to send a different message after having let Louis Kealoha get away with his criminal activities?

This is yet another example of getting rid of the top dog every time something doesnt go the way some commission, board or committee thinks it should. Schools Superintendent Christina Kishimoto is another example.

Perhaps its time we looked at ourselves rather than pouncing at the first sign of perceived mismanagement.

Sally L. Jones

Kailua

Social justice advocate for police commission

Mahalo to Benjamin Mahi for withdrawing his nomination from consideration to serve on the Honolulu Police Commission (Honolulu Mayor Rick Blangiardis pick for Police Commission withdraws nomination, Star- Advertiser, April 14).

It is my hope that Blangiardis next nominee will be a social justice advocate, ideally from one of the overrepresented communities in our criminal justice system. The commission is supposed to be the voice of the community, and for that to be assured, we need more diversity of thought on the commission.

Michael Golojuch Jr.

Makakilo

Key government posts will be difficult to fill

Hawaii is in a period of transition, with three major government positions to be filled Honolulu police chief, state superintendent of schools and director of the rail transit project. The current police chief and superintendent chose to resign, while the rail director was fired.

Im not certain whether any of their departures should be welcomed.

I do know that finding replacements who will be improvements on their predecessors wont be easy.

Those charged with this task have a major responsibility, especially if they criticized the departing persons.

Carl H. Zimmerman

Salt Lake

Hard for young people to survive in paradise

The high cost of living in Hawaii makes life very hard for most residents. More and more people will leave the islands as it becomes a place that caters mostly to the wealthy.

The economy should be serving the people living here, not selling the isles as a getaway from the pandemic.

We also are often told that a person needs to find a college on the mainland in order to be successful.

I experienced this myself when I was applying for college. Teachers and my peers questioned why I decided to attend the University of Hawaii at Manoa. However, I have enjoyed my experience so far.

Young people are the future of Hawaii, and if we can make Hawaii more affordable and provide opportunities for them, then they can stay to contribute. Why are our elected officials unwilling to lift the minimum wage?

Winnie Lau

Kapahulu

Stairway to Heaven can be big tourist attraction

The City and County of Honolulu will be making a big mistake if it closes the Stairway to Heaven. It is the ultimate tourist attraction, and probably one of the wonders of the world. People take spectacular photos from the top of the stairs and circulate them on the internet. The advertising value of these awesome Oahu panoramic pictures far outweighs any maintenance or liability costs.

The city should spend a few million dollars to repair and maintain the stairs and make them safer. The relatively few rescues that are required each year probably serve as an inexpensive on-the-job training activity for search and rescue crews.

Is the mayor kowtowing to boisterous landowners living near the entrance who want the stairs closed?

Keep the Stairway to Heaven open.

Ray Graham

Waikiki

Dont make everyone use 10-digit dialing

A recent story noted that all callers in Hawaii will be required to dial the area code 808 plus the telephone number for local calls beginning Oct. 24 (Transition to 10-digit dialing begins April 24, Star-Advertiser, April 9).

Wouldnt it be simpler to change the 988 prefix for the relatively small number of Hawaii residents with that prefix, rather than burden our million-plus population with this extra dialing? I would think that this would be a simpler solution.

It would be helpful to have an explanation as to why this cannot be done. Consider the inconvenience to every 808 subscriber.

Roy King

Waialae-Kahala

EXPRESS YOURSELF

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser welcomes all opinions. Want your voice to be heard? Submit a letter to the editor.

>> Write us: We welcome letters up to 150 words, and guest columns of 500-600 words. We reserve the right to edit for clarity and length. Include your name, address and daytime phone number.

>> Mail: Letters to the Editor, Honolulu Star-Advertiser 7 Waterfront Plaza, 500 Ala Moana, Suite 210 Honolulu, HI 96813

>> Contact: 529-4831 (phone), 529-4750 (fax), letters@staradvertiser.com, staradvertiser.com/editorial/submit-letter

More:
Letters: Second Amendment requires context; Hard for young people to survive in paradise; Stairway to Heaven can be big tourist attraction - Honolulu...

FILE - A man carries his weapon during a Second Amendment gun rally at Utah State Capitol on Feb. 8, 2020, in Salt Lake City. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer, File)

By Stephen L. Black | The Public Forum

| April 18, 2021, 12:00 p.m.

I am intrigued by the recent declaration of Second Amendment sanctuary in Weber County. I wonder if the members of the Weber County Commission have ever read the Second Amendment. For their sakes, here it is in total: A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. Thats it -- thats the entire text.

The meaning of militia makes a difference to the rights established by the Second Amendment. This is how militia is defined by Miriam-Websters online dictionary:

A: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency.

B : a body of citizens organized for military service

C : a private group of armed individuals that operates as a paramilitary force and is typically motivated by a political or religious ideology

I would hope that the intent of the framers of the Bill of Rights was A or B. Of course they might have meant C, but that seems less likely to constitutional scholars. Note the wording: A (singular) well regulated Militia (capital M). That does not seem to suggest multiple street gangs, cop cos-players, or lone wolves.

Does Weber County maintain a Militia, i.e., a body of citizens organized for military service? I for one have never seen their Militia, but hey, I live in a different county. If they dont have an organized armed force, must we conclude therefore that the Weber County Commissioners want to encourage militias as paramilitary forces motivated by ideology? Even if they encourage ideology-driven paramilitaries in Weber County those militias ought to be well regulated, per the literal text of the Second Amendment.

This brings me to my main question for the county commissioners: Are you regulating your militias, as required by the Constitution? And are they well regulated? The sanctuary which you declared last week to guarantee that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed seems to require well regulation. Please enforce all of the Second Amendment, not just the second half. Thank you.

Stephen L. Black, South Jordan

Submit a letter to the editor

View original post here:
Letter: Weber County should enforce all of the Second Amendment, not just the second half - Salt Lake Tribune