Category Archives: Second Amendment

Republican Colorado Representative Lauren Boebert has been praised by some of her constituents for giving them a voice, particularly on the Second Amendment's right to bear arms.

However, other constituents have felt differently, especially following her January 6 vote against certifying President Joe Biden's electoral victory. Critics say that votes like hers legitimized insurrectionists who rioted inside the Capitol in hopes of overturning the 2020 election. Others think that her focus on guns overshadows more-pressing issues facing her Colorado constituents.

Boebert has achieved notoriety in her opening days as a freshman representative. Barely two months into her first term, she is perhaps best known for supporting gun rights and expanding the fossil fuel industry as well as opposing Biden's election and his legislative effortsincluding putting forth bills to counter some of the president's executive orders on the environment and energy policy.

"I feel like she's my voice when I didn't feel like I had one," Boebert-supporter Jamie Cure told 5280, a Denver publication. "She's ignited me to be proud to be American again."

"She's a strong supporter of (the Second Amendment), as am I," Lou Vallario told The Daily Sentinel. Vallario is the sheriff of Garfield County, Colorado. "Our Second Amendment rights are always trying to get eroded. I'm proud of her for being able to stand up for the Second Amendment."

The freshman Republican Congress member has made guns a focus of her time in the Capitol. In a January 3 ad, she told viewers that she would "carry my Glock to Congress." She was also one of several Republicans who refused to participate in Capitol security measures following the January 6 insurrection.

On February 18, Boebert displayed three large firearms and a handgun in her background during a virtual House committee hearing. At the hearing, she pushed back on efforts to forbid Congress members from bringing guns to committee meetings.

She has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives all Americans the right to bear arms. She has also said that Congress members, in particular, should be allowed to carry guns in order to fight off any attackers in Washington D.C. or within the Capitol building.

But despite her advocacy for guns, it's unlikely that Boebert will vote on a firearms reform bill before she has to run for re-election in 2022, according to Mesa County Republican party chair and former Colorado state legislator Dan Thurlow.

"She should focus on what is she going to do for the people of Garfield County that are hurting, in the areas of COVID, health care, education and the need to diversify the economy because oil and gas is deteriorating," John Krousouloudis told The Sentinel. He is one of Boebert's constituents and the former chair of the Garfield Democratic Party.

Boebert has seats on the House Budget and Natural Resources Committees. On those committees, she has advocated for allowing for increasing multiple-use access on public lands, varying approaches to energy production, reducing the national debt and other issues, according to 5280.

Her approach to non-gun issues will most likely impact her re-election chances. Though she won her 2020 race by over 26,500 votes, representing just over 6 percent of the overall vote, a Democratic lawyer named Colin Wilhelm has already decided to challenge her in 2022.

Wilhelm told the Denver publication that he decided to run because of the January 6 insurrection. He added that he has heard from numerous Republicans who dislike Boebert's rhetoric. Unless Boebert adds more legislative accomplishments to her notoriety, Wilhelm and other opponents may use her focus on guns to make her more of a vulnerable political target.

Newsweek contacted Boebert's office for comment.

Go here to see the original:
Voters Praise Lauren Boebert for Giving Them a Voice on Second Amendment Rights - Newsweek

GRANGEVILLE - An effort is underway in Idaho County to add the entire county to the growing list of areas to declare itself a "Second Amendment Sanctuary" zone in Idaho.

The Idaho County 2A Coalition is leading the effort and is planning events to gather support and ask residents to sign petitions. Gatherings are planned on the next three Fridays (3/12, 3/19, 3/26) at the Idaho County Veterans Center at 318 E. Main Street in Grangeville.

A Second Amendment Sanctuary is typically a city or county that has adopted laws or resolutions that oppose the enforcement of certain gun control measures.

Once collected, the group plans to present the signatures to Idaho County Commissioners. "With a large number of citizens behind this action, we can raise the bar on our desire for Idaho County Commissioners and Idaho County Sheriff to declare Idaho County a Second Amendment Sanctuary with protections from outside governments that would infringe on these rights as described in the Constitution of the United States," says the group's website.

Read more:
Effort Underway to Make all of Idaho County a 2nd Amendment Sanctuary Zone - bigcountrynewsconnection.com

Red flag laws, invasive gun registration initiatives and a growing fear of proposed legislative firearms restrictions have spawned a burgeoning Second Amendment sanctuary movement intent on preserving the right to keep and bear arms.

And while there are only two such designated towns in Maine Fort Fairfield and Paris more local governments are considering passing gun sanctuary resolutions.

Brownfield just called me about it, said Rusty Brackett, chairman of Paris Maines select board.

And Fort Fairfield town leaders said several towns have asked to see their resolution after the council declared Fort Fairfield a Second Amendment sanctuary in January.

So, what is a Second Amendment sanctuary?

While the pronouncements vary, these gun safe havens declared by towns, cities, counties, states and sheriffs around the nation are basically created through local resolutions, ordinances and, in some cases, state laws, aimed at pushing back against state and federal gun control measures passed or proposed.

Still, as this movement takes root in Maine, it remains unclear how such measures will affect local law enforcement, the sale of guns and ammunition, mental health situations involving guns and the commission of criminal acts. Additionally, a fear-based rush to pass such resolutions without public discussion and discourse could lead to future unintended consequences for municipalities.

In Fort Fairfield, Bob Kilcollins, the town councilor who drafted the towns recently approved resolution, is confident in the town councils decision as he points to pending federal legislation, H.R. 127, introduced in January by Democratic U.S. Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas.

Just read it, he said, holding up a copy as others in his Route 165 sport shop expressed fears that new gun laws will take away the rights of legal gun owners. The resolution protects us from bogus gun laws these bills affect legal gun owners and there is a fear today that the new administration now in office will play games with our constitutional rights and that is not fair.

If passed, Rep. Jackson Lees new bill limits or prohibits certain ammunition, establishes a firearm registration system, a database of gun owners, as well as strict licensing requirements.

While Kilcollins said Fort Fairfield now only follows one gun law, the Second Amendment, the weight and meaning of such resolutions is debatable.

There are some, like Geoff Bickford, the head of Maines Gun Safety Coalition, who say these Second Amendment Sanctuaries are nothing more than temper tantrums.

Others, like Lillie Lavado, chairwoman of the Aroostook County Democrats, find the term sanctuary as it relates to guns, objectionable.

In this context, sanctuary is intentionally offensive to refugees and survivors of mass shootings. Extremist rhetoric is manufacturing partisan tensions, resulting in radical movements like the Second Amendment sanctuary plot, Lavado said on Friday. Today, Aroostook Countys leaders should be focused on equitable expansion of opportunities for us all, rather than obsessing over the 230-year-old Second Amendment.

Nonetheless, giving these pro-gun moves little credence is dangerous, said Kris Brown, president of Brady, a gun violence prevention organization.

This is not a grassroots movement, but rather it is a National Rifle Association marketing campaign, she said. They are attempting to recast all gun laws as violating the Second Amendment. This confuses people.

But as the power and definition of such sanctuaries gets bandied about, the movement is gaining steam with hundreds of U.S. localities passing similar measures. Additionally, several states including Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming, Kansas are already designated Second Amendment sanctuaries while others have introduced legislation that, if passed, would designate the entire state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.

To take it even further, a proposed Texas law, H.B. 112, states that any law enforcement officer enforcing certain gun laws could be charged with a Class A misdemeanor.

Constitutional scholar Shawn Fields, assistant professor of law at Campbell Universitys Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law in North Carolina, said cloudy interpretations of the Second Amendment and the way the resolution is drafted have bearing on its weight.

If the town drafts a generic resolution stating the town rejects all unconstitutional gun laws, the move is likely symbolic. And those identifying specific gun laws the town will not enforce may have more teeth, Fields said.

The Fort Fairfield resolution expresses opposition to any law that would unconstitutionally restrict the rights of citizens to peacefully keep and bear arms, and it declares its intent to oppose unconstitutional restrictions on this right.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Town Manager Andrea Powers explained that the town only rejects unconstitutional gun laws.

But there lies the problem. How are towns interpreting whether a gun law is unconstitutional?

The answer for Fort Fairfield is found in the constitution, meaning any law that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms, according to Powers.

Thats a tricky question, Fields said. A Second Amendment absolutist says that anything that tries to restrict weapons violates the constitution. But that was not its purpose. Do red flag laws violate the Constitution? We dont know. The Supreme Court has not decided.

There is a lot of room for interpretation of the Second Amendment, said Fields, who explained there have been only two U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment decisions, one in 1934 and the other in 2008, making the parameters of the amendment harder to define.

Some of this comes down to whether the municipality has the support of local law enforcement.

Sheriffs have enormous discretion not to enforce laws like red flag or gun registration, Fields said. And a police chief makes choices every day about what to enforce.

Kilcollins, like hundreds of other U.S. town leaders, is adamantly convinced law enforcement will back the towns rejection of all unconstitutional gun laws because they take an oath to defend the Constitution.

They will stand behind us, he said.

After repeated calls to the Fort Fairfield police and the Aroostook County Sheriff, they were not reached for comment.

Conversely, Brackett, the chairman of Paris, Maines, board of selectmen, is not so sure about the power of his towns resolution passed in 2019.

Paris gun safe designation may be a symbolic measure, according to Brackett, but because the town supports a persons right to own guns, the board unanimously passed the resolution.

We wanted to let them know where we stand, Brackett said on Thursday, referring to Democrats. Our new president wants nothing more than to take our guns. Hed like to take all our guns away.

Consider what happened in New Mexico: 29 of 33 sheriffs signed a declaration saying they would not enforce newly proposed gun laws relating to background checks, domestic abuse protection orders, extreme risk (red flag laws) and safe storage. And in emails to local leaders, the sheriffs encouraged towns to become Second Amendment sanctuaries.

If a woman suffering domestic violence gets a restraining order to remove a gun, she needs to know the sheriff will do so, Brown said. This is very dangerous. This idea that the Second Amendment is without limits . . . the Second Amendment does not guarantee everyone a gun.

Following an extensive public records request, the Brady organization obtained documents and copies of the New Mexico Sheriffs correspondence with the NRA. And according to Brown, the sheriffs used language in their Second Amendment sanctuary declaration that was fed to them from the NRA.

In a recent paper published in the Northwestern University Law Review, Fields talked about his theory that state home rule laws may offer recourse to these gun safe havens.

With the home rule, it depends on how the home rule statute is written, Fields said on Thursday. There is at least the possibility.

Maine is a home rule state. Home rule can sometimes give a local government the authority to supersede state law.

Still, Aroostook County District Attorney Todd Collins said that the sanctuary concept is the opposite of how localities often change state laws. For example, there is a statewide disorderly conduct law, but a locality might choose to make it more stringent than the state law.

In the case of Second Amendment sanctuaries, the locality is choosing to reject state law.

This is the opposite of home rule, he said.

Ultimately, there will be a test case when a gun law is not enforced and someone gets hurt, Brown said.

I am worried that innocent people will lose lives, she said. Ultimately, I think local government is influenced by a handful of people. I think it is very important for people who care about how law enforcement protects them, [to] raise their voices.

See the article here:
More Maine towns consider becoming 2nd Amendment sanctuaries, even as how it would be enforced remains unclear - Bangor Daily News

Establishing formal rights enforcement partnerships between citizens and peace officers is crucial. (Newton County Sheriffs Office/Facebook)

U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)-Last September, AmmoLand hosted one of my articles about a resolution being considered by the Halifax County Board of Supervisors to support a local militia. The move was in response to unprecedented gun grabs being enacted in Virginia and was one of a number of responses that include establishing what are being called Second Amendment sanctuaries. The Halifax resolution didnt go forward due to self-imposed ignorance and gutlessness on the part of a critical mass of supervisors, and predictable misrepresentation and fear-mongering by the media.

One was a resolution approved in December 2019 by the Amherst County Board of Supervisors that declared the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms must be respected, celebrated and upheld; urged the state and federal governments not to pass further infringements and burdens; expressed intent to take lawful actions to protect and support the rights of its citizens [and] not to aid in unconstitutional efforts to restrict these rights; and oppose any provision, law or regulation that may impose additional regulatory burdens or result in mandates to expend additional public funds on enforcement or administration of such laws, or to require constitutional officers of the locality to do so

The second link my correspondent provided went further, a May 2, 2020 resolution (scroll to pg. 8) adopted by another Board of Supervisors recognizing the militia within the county of Bedford pursuant to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 13 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Cutting to the chase, heres what they resolve to do:

[W]e express our intent to uphold and protect the Second Amendment and Article I, 13 rights and to prepare for service or to serve as a member of the Militia in Bedford County; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in order to support the Militia, enhance the safety and security of the citizens of Bedford County and establish, as our founders intended, a barrier against a tyrannical government, the Board hereby expresses its intent to:

(1) Decline to expend county resources for any effort to enforce unconstitutional laws enacted after January 20, 2020 restricting ownership and use of firearms that are in common use required for self-defense by individual citizens or for service to the community as part of the Militia in Bedford County.

(2) Recognize the right to assemble and train to arms for service individually or in groups in the event they are called or ordered out for lawful purposes

(3) Support opportunities for law-abiding citizens to assemble for recreational and civic purposes and train to arms that enhance the individual citizens ability to defend himself, his family, his community; and the Militias ability to respond effectively to a crisis.

the Board hereby declares our intent to oppose all unconstitutional restrictions on the Bill of Rights and specifically the Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution and Article I, 13 of the Constitution of Virginia through such legal means as may be expedient, including, without limitation, legal process.

Thats better. It goes beyond Second Amendment Sanctuary declarations and recognizes the purposes and the right of citizens to train and to possess the minimal type of weaponry needed for performing Militia duty (we are, after all, basically talking semiautos here). The ornery among us (OK, me), might point out that some of us may be ineligible for the law-abiding qualifier because we refuse to comply with existing disarmament edicts and opt to retain banned firearms, magazines, and the like in defiance of such blatant and arrogant infringements.

And then theres the problem of existing law in states like Virginia, which essentially declare:

Groups of armed individuals that engage in paramilitary activity or law enforcement functions without being called forth by a governor or the federal government and without reporting to any government authority are acting as unauthorized private militias.

Theyll need to take care and especially be on guard against CIs/provocateurs trying to lure them into violation traps.

Its nice to see more counties and states waking up to the existential obey or be destroyed threat that the violence monopolists are forcing on gun owners. Its great to see so many movements turning the sanctuary maneuver adopted by the left to impede immigration law enforcement around and using it to resist the evisceration of what founder Tench Coxe called the birthright of an American.

Heres what they dont do, at least until now: They dont actually enforce rights, which if you think about it, is the sworn duty of every law enforcer. They might not help the feds or the state rape a citizen of his rights, but they dont stop them from the act, either.

Daniel Horowitz at The Blaze notes that Newton County, Missouri aims to change that. Their commission not only declares federal infringements invalid, but it also criminalizes their enforcement and authorizes the arrest of agents:

That one has some teeth in it. It also marks the county, the commissioners, and the sheriff as cancel culture targets for advancing such an ordinance, and as actual targets if they attempt to enforce it.

Now, how about a Bedford-type Militia resolution to supplement this and cement a partnership with the citizens they serve?And how about if the movement grows? Thats where the adage In unity there is strength comes in, and more importantly, where YOU come in.

Horowitz lets us know about the website SanctuaryCounties.com, where we can find out about similar efforts in our areas of operation, and further points us to the Constitution Action Network, for people of the same state and county to meet, collaborate, and raise awareness of the power of state and local government to interpose against the growing list of blatant constitutional violations and extra-lawful lawmaking

Former House Speaker Tip ONeill once observed that All politics is local. Its easy to see, especially in Blue States dominated by high population density urban areas, how citizens in flyover/drive-through country can feel like their voices will never be heard and that its useless to even try. When we get closer to home, our impact becomes stronger, especially if we involve ourselves in what the Democrats know to be effective, but which far too many gun owners seem unwilling to even try: Organizing.

Ideally, we should be working toward all three goals: A Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution, a Militia resolution, and a Second Amendment enforcement bill. I urge you to find out whats going on where you live, if productive organizing looks feasible there, and what you need to do to be a part of it.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance, is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

Here is the original post:
Second Amendment Resolutions Add Emphasis to Adage That 'All Politics is Local' - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

Pennsylvanias Bruce Castor choked on the First Amendment. Unfortunately, while his performance was nearly universally panned, no critics mentioned one jarring error. His gaffe occurred in the very first moments of his opening salvo and was on an issue foundational to President Trumps defense. While at first blush his factual misrepresentation might appear narrow, it is not minuscule. Rather, Castor constructed a First Amendment analysis laid on a factually erroneous foundation and ending with a reductive plea which boils down to; its first so its important. Castors problem, though, is simply, the First Amendment wasnt meant to be first.

Its not surprising that Trumps defense attorneys relied on the First Amendment. What is surprising is, given this reliance, they have so little understanding of its history. Castors opening statement incorrectly stressed repeatedly Now its not an accident its not an accident that the very first liberty in the first article of the Bill of Rights is the First Amendment which says Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, etc. Congress shall make no law. The very first one. The most important one. Actually, it is first because of exactly that, an absolute accident.

Todays First Amendment is a combination of what was originally intended as the third and fourth of 19 amendments James Madison introduced on June 8, 1789 as the Bill of Rights. The House of Representatives agreed to 17 of Madisons proposals. The Senate then cut and condensed these 17 down to 12. At this point todays First Amendment became the proposed Third Amendment.

Congress then approved these 12 proposed amendments and they were sent to the existing states for ratification. The proposed first two amendments, however, failed to garner three-fourths of the state legislators votes required for ratification. Thus, on Dec. 15, 1791 what Congress proposed as the Third Amendment became todays First Amendment by mere happenstance of history.

It may be worth noting that the proposed Second Amendment concerned congressional compensation. While it would take more than two centuries, it passed in 1992, becoming the 27th Amendment. The proposed First Amendment concerned the number of members from the House of Representatives allocated to the states. Had it passed, todays House would have more than 6,000 representatives, more than 10 times its current size. Maybe things worked out for the best.

The First Amendments speech clause, only one of its five clauses, is vital to, and certainly a cherished cornerstone of, democracy. But if Castors shoddy legal analysis leads him to conclude todays 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights progress purposefully in descending order of importance, how does he explain the role played by the highly placed Third Amendment? No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner. That ones not exactly at the forefront of our constitutional conversation.

In fact, an even closer look at the First Amendments speech clause in isolation from its other four clauses reveals even more trouble with this line of thinking. The speech clause Congress eventually approved as its proposed third of 12 amendments didnt even start out as Madisons third. He placed the anti-establishment, and free exercise, of religion clauses alone in his Third Amendment. Madison merely saw fit to put the freedoms of speech, press, and assembly in his Fourth Amendment.

Madison is referred to as the Father of the Constitution. His proposed Fourth Amendment protecting speech reads; The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable. It was back when the Senate cut and condensed the Houses 17 proposed amendments down to 12 that Madisons speech protection moved up to third.

So Castor really relied on a speech clause that was in the fourth, then in the third, and then somehow, after navigating 2 years of the political process, ended up in our First Amendment. His constitutional misapprehension is enough to leave one speechless.

Steven Reske is an attorney and former legal editor-at-large of Minnesota Law & Politics.

Categories:Featured Commentary | Opinion

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

More Featured Commentary Stories

Read the rest here:
Steven Reske: Bruce Castor needs lesson on the First Amendment - TribLIVE

Share and speak up for justice, law & order...

Washington President Joe Biden reportedly wont rule out using executive orders to crackdown on Americans constitutionally protected Second Amendment rights. The revelation was made during a White House press conference on Tuesday in response to a statement that Biden put out last week calling for banning semi-automatic firearms in addition to other gun control measures, the Daily Wire reported.

What is your timetable for action on what the president calls common sense measures? a reporter asked White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, And whats the realistic hope that you have this will pass both houses?

Well, we havent proposed a package at this point, Psaki responded. So its hard for me to make a prediction about its likelihood of passing. But I will say that the president is somebody throughout his career who has advocated for smart gun safety measures. He is not afraid of standing up to the NRA. Hes done it multiple times and won on background checks and a range of issues. And it is a priority to him on a personal level, but I dont have a prediction for you, or preview for you on a timeline of a package, and certainly not what it will look like and how it goes through Congress.

WATCH:

Later in the press conference, a second reporter asked Psaki, Does the president still plan to take executive action on gun control? Next came the disclosure that its feasible.

The president has a range of actions at his disposal, Psaki responded. He hasnt ruled out either of those options.

The question came after Biden called on Congress late last week to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets.

Law Officer is the only major law enforcement publication and website owned and operated by law enforcement. This unique facet makes Law Officer much more than just a publishing company but is a true advocate for the profession.

Share and speak up for justice, law & order...

More here:
Biden won't rule out cracking down on Second Amendment rights with executive orders - LawOfficer.com

President Bidens nominee for attorney general Merrick Garland on Monday said theres legal room for new federal gun control and he wouldnt rule out policies that ban certain types of guns.

Garland, a federal appeals court judge, told senators at his confirmation hearing that Biden supports new limits and that his job would be to pursue them.

As Im sure you know, the president is a strong supporter of gun control and has been an advocate all of his life, professional life, on this question. The role of the Justice Department is to advance the policy program of the administration as long as it is consistent with the law, Garland told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

And as I said, so far we have a little indication from the Supreme Court as to what this means. But we dont have a complete indication. And where there is room under the law for the presidents policies to be pursued, then I think the president is entitled to pursue them.

Garland, who is expected to be confirmed, was responding to a question from Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) on whether it would be possible to ban certain types of guns.

On banning guns, Garland said, where there is room under the law for the presidents policies to be pursued, then I think the president is entitled to pursue them.

Biden last week called on Congress to requir[e] background checks on all gun sales, [ban] assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminat[e] immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets.

The definition of assault weapon is contested, but many Democrats consider the term to include AR-15-style semi-automatic rifles, which are popular among gun-rights advocates including for self-defense but also are a gun of choice for mass-shootings. There are an estimated 10-to-20 million legally owned AR-15s and similar weapons in the US.

Garland is expected to be easily confirmed by the Senate with many Republican votes. He was nominated in 2016 by then-President Barack Obama to replace conservative Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, but Republicans who controlled the Senate declined to hold confirmation hearings.

As a federal appeals judge, Garland in 2007 voted in favor of the full DC Circuit re-hearing a ruling in favor of gun rights. The case, ultimately known as District of Columbia v. Heller, was not reheard by the appeals court and the Supreme Court in 2008 ruled in the case that the Second Amendment provides for an individual right to own guns.

Garland defended his vote, saying it was not about the merits of the case, but rather about the need for further analysis.

The panel decision was the first time I think ever that a court of appeals had held the individual right to keep and bear arms, which you are exactly right, the Supreme Court did uphold in the end. Every court of appeals had decided to the contrary, and the issue was plainly one that would require looking at a deep historical record as to the meaning of the Second Amendment and the way that had been applied, Garland told Lee.

I thought this was an extremely important issue, important enough since it was the very first time that we should hear it en banc. I was not the only judge, and other judges including a judge appointed by the by a president of a different party also voted and for the same reason.

Garland said he wasnt sure if the Constitution allows people to carry loaded guns in public and said he hadnt studied the issue of whether legal immunity for gunmakers should be retained.

See the rest here:
Biden AG pick Merrick Garland says there's room for new gun control - New York Post

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. A recently filed bill would say that Arkansas is a sanctuary state for any federal gun regulations. Josh Gwin is a gun salesman for Bullseye Guns and Ammo and he agrees with the intent of the bill, I wanna to give that two thumbs up because I think its awesome like we need that in the state we like our guns are in Arkansas.

He believes the state should stand up to any potential overreach by the federal government, What I hope is that its just gonna send a message to a democratically ran Senate right now and house that were not just gonna roll over and go OK yeah right take away these rights were gonna be cool with that because thats not thats not how its going to work.

Kelly Krout is a gun owner and thinks this just an overreaction to the November elections, I think its a knee-jerk reaction to some Democrats are making some offices that maybe people didnt want them to make I think people tend to get very stressed out about their gun rights and responsible gun owners dont need to be worried.

She thinks this bill is a waste of time, and potentially, money, Itll end up in court and its just gonna waste Arkansas taxpayers money when we could actually just obey the federal law.

Krout would like to see the General Assembly tackle gun regulations from a common sense standpoint instead of fighting the federal government, Really love to see Arkansas focus more on doing things like trying to keep guns out of the hands domestic abusers rather than just try to make it easier for everybody to get a guy who wants one.

Gwin hopes this bill will send a clear message because he feels the Constitution has already taken enough stance, I think the second amendment is very clear and there should be no reason to create a stance the stance is already been made.

See the article here:
New bill filed to make Arkansas 2nd amendment sanctuary state - KARK

A bill that would claim the right to invalidate federal laws that limit the right to bear arms for the state of Wyoming has been filed in the legislature.

You can read Senate File 81here.

It's sponsored by Sens. Bouchard, Biteman, French, Hutchings, James, McKeown and Salazar and Representative(s) Baker, Bear, Burt, Fortner, Gray, Haroldson, Heiner, Laursen, Neiman, Ottman, Rodriguez-Williams, Wharff, and Winter.

The bill would attempt to use the tenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution to invalidate federal gun laws, according to the wording of the legislation:

''(iii)The limitation of the federal government's power is affirmed under the tenth amendment of the constitution of the United States, which defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people of the several states to thefederal government, and all power not delegated to the federal government in the constitution of the United States is reserved to the states respectively or to the people themselves;

(iv)If the federal government assumes powers that the people did not grant it in the constitution of the United States, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no force;"

The tenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

''The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Continue reading here:
Second Amendment Preservation Act Bill Filed In Wyoming - Kgab

If you are one of the more than five million first-time gun owners in this country, you may have just become an undesirable in the eyes of our new presidential administration. If youre already a firearms owner, then you already know how the new administration views you.

With the months-long rioting literally all around the country in 2020 and the widespread call to defund the police, millions of Americans became first-time gun owners while fearing for their families and their own safety. The Biden-Harris administration did not approve of this and, with their election, have proposed legislation to curtail these types of activities.

For those who supported Biden, heres what you have brought on the country regarding firearms. I found this information on the Joe Bidens Gun Control Plan webpage. The administration wants to ban the new manufacture of so-called assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. They want to control the firearms and magazines already in personal possession by requiring registration of both the firearm and the magazine, including a $200 tax for the right to continue owning these items. That tax is for each item. If you own five high-capacity magazines, thats $200 per magazine!

Theyre talking about a buyback program to get firearms off the streets. If this happens, you might be forced to sell your new $600 handgun to the federal government for $50! This administration wants to require gun owners to have a firearms owners license. They want to limit the stockpiling of weapons by limiting you to buying a maximum of one firearm per month. They want universal background checks by anyone selling a firearm. This would effectively eliminate the private sale of guns, period!

Biden-Harris proposes ending the sale of firearms over the internet. That would make acquiring a firearm here in Alaska difficult and problematic. My ability as an FFL dealer to do firearms transfers would be greatly reduced, and for certain types of firearms like blackpowder cartridge guns, folks would have a difficult time buying them. I dont know of any dealer in Alaska who specifically handles this type of firearm in any quantity.

Firearms confiscation is being discussed to keep firearms away from those considered dangerous. They would like to see a national red flag law in effect, which would allow the confiscation of firearms, without due process, from anyone reported as dangerous by anyone for any reason. Guess what that would mean for you conservative types out there!

Another major item in the Biden-Harris firearms agenda is to rescind the current law which holds the manufacturer of an item innocent of responsibility for the illegal and unlawful use of that product. If this law is repealed, Smith and Wesson could be sued for some dirtbag using one of their firearms to rob the local gas station. The Biden-Harris administration is only proposing this for the firearms industry. Think how this would affect our economy if this law was repealed for the automobile and liquor industries!

I have not listed everything itemized on the Biden Gun Control webpage. Look it up for yourself and imagine the impact all these items would have on your daily life and personal safety if they would be enacted.

I have read that if this gun-control legislation is successful in passing Congress, the next step would involve eliminating all semi-automatic firearms private ownership, whether they be rifle, handgun or shotgun. Yet, according to FBI statistics, more people are killed in this country each year with knives and baseball bats than with so-called assault rifles!

Four states and 37 counties within other states have declared themselves to be Second Amendment sanctuary jurisdictions. Texas is in the process of possibly becoming the fifth state to do so. The first four states to adopt this approach are: Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, and Wyoming.

"Non-binding resolution" resolutionsthat prohibit or impede the enforcement of certain "Gun control" gun controlmeasures (considered to be) a violation of the Second Amendmentsuch as magazine bans, "Red flag laws" red flag laws, etc., basically allowing people (to do) what the constitution allows them to do.

Make no mistake about it, this is the worst assault on our Second Amendment in my lifetime. The progressives have already launched a major assault on the First Amendment, including the ability of people to worship as they choose. If the Second Amendment falls, you can kiss the rest of our Constitutional protections good-by as well.

Original post:
Gun control and the new administration | Opinions | frontiersman.com - Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman