Category Archives: Second Amendment

Just in case anyone needed further proof that much of the federal bureaucracy is more interested in serving themselves and left-wing political interests than public service, news broke this week that rogue elements of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) have been conspiring with Joe Bidens transition team to enact gun control by executive fiat. At the top of these anti-gun government functionaries wish list is executive regulation of commonly-owned pistol stabilizing braces and materials used by individuals to make their own firearms sometimes referred to as unfinished or 80%frames or receivers.

On November 10, gun rights activist John Crump published a piece for Ammoland.com with details of a leaked BATFE conference call in which BATFE Acting Director Regina Lombardo and Associate Deputy Director Marvin Richardson participated. According to the article, Acting Director Regina Lombardo told those in attendance that the anti-gun Biden transition team has reached out to the ATF to get the agencys top priorities.The item went on to note that Lombardo told those on the call that her priorities would be pistol braces and 80% lower receivers.

It is unclear from Crumps initial report how Lombardo wants the BATFE to target these items, but under a proper reading of federal law the agencys options are limited.

Pistol stabilizing braces are an item that attaches to the rear of many configurations of commonly-owned semi-automatic pistols that helps stabilize the pistol on a shooters arm so that they may effectively shoot the firearm with one hand. These items are particularly valuable for differently-abled shooters who may not have the use of two hands. BATFE has approved several arm braces for this purpose. At present, Americans own over 4 million of these items.

BATFE already has a fraught history with pistol stabilizing braces. In January 2015, BATFE released an Open Letter on the Redesign of Stabilizing Braces. With the letter, BATFE sought to stop individuals from using pistol stabilizing braces in a manner in which they were not designed for specifically, using a brace to shoulder the pistol.

Federal law defines rifleas a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.Further, a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in lengthis categorized as a short-barreled rifle.Short-barreled riflesare subject to the National Firearms Act and must be registered with the federal government in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. On the other hand, a handgunis defined as a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand.

In the letter, BATFE contended that an individual who shouldered a pistol equipped with a pistol stabilizing brace was creating a short-barreled rifle.

This reading of the law was patently absurd. The definitions of both rifleand pistolturn on how a particular firearm is designed and intended to be used. Pistols equipped with a pistol stabilizing brace are designed and intended to be fired by the use of a single hand.The object of a pistol stabilizing brace is to facilitate single-handed shooting.

A person using a firearm equipped with a pistol stabilizing brace in a manner in which it was not designed for, by shouldering it, does not change the fact that the firearm was designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand.Under such tortured logic, someone who attempted to fire a stock Glock 19 by placing it upon his shoulder would be creating a short-barreled rifle. What matters under federal law is what the firearm was designed and intended for, not how any individual user might use it.

In early 2017, BATFE reconsidered its incorrect reading of the law. In a letter to pistol stabilizing brace manufacturer SB Tactical, the agency explained,

To the extent the January 2015 Open Letter implied or has been construed to hold that incidental, sporadic, or situational use of an arm-brace (in its original approved configuration) equipped firearm from a firing position at or near the shoulder was sufficient to constitute redesign, such interpretations are incorrect and not consistent with ATFs interpretation of the statute or the manner in which it has historically been enforced.

For three years gun owners enjoyed some measure of sanity on the pistol stabilizing brace issue. However, the BATFE - perhaps anticipating a more anti-gun political climate has begun targeting pistol stabilizing braces again.

In August, the agency sent firearm manufacturer Q LLC a cease & desist letter informing the company that its Honey Badgerpistol, which is equipped with a pistol stabilizing brace, was in the agencys view a short-barreled riflesubject to the NFA. After grassroots action taken by NRA members and other gun rights supporters in early October, BATFE suspended the cease & desist order for 60 days.

Concerning unfinished frames and receivers, the current federal statute and regulations are clear. Federal law defines a firearmto include any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosiveand the frame or receiver of any such weapon.In the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), firearm frame or receiveris further defined as That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.

In order to target unfinished frames and receivers, BATFE would likely attempt to broaden the definition of firearm frame or receiverin the CFR. Such a change is inadvisable and should at the very least require a formal rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.

By targeting the materials Americans use to make their own firearms, BATFE is striking at the core of the Second Amendment right in a manner that has no basis in the text, history, and tradition of the right. Since long before the founding, Americans have enjoyed the right to make their own firearms for personal use without government interference.

The interest in regulating these items by executive diktat shows a willingness at BATFE and in a prospective Biden administration to ignore the law. This is not the opinion of NRA-ILA, but of the Barack Obama administration.

In late 2015, Obama tasked his White House with doing everything within their lawful authority to pursue gun control through executive action. Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz said of Obamas administrative gun control efforts, he has asked his team to scrub existing legal authorities to see if theres any additional action we can take administrativelyThe President has made clear hes not satisfied with where we are, and expects that work to be completed soon.In remarks announcing the new actions, Obama stated were going to do everything we can to ensure the smart and effective enforcement of gun safety laws that are already on the booksFurther, a press release that accompanied the announcement of these measures, stated, The President and Vice President are committed to using every tool at the Administrations disposal to reduce gun violence.

Both pistol stabilizing braces and unfinished frames and receivers existed at the time of the Obama administrations efforts, yet they were not targeted for prohibition. The fact that BATFE, and possibly the Biden team, believe they could do even more than Obama suggests that they are willing to go beyond what even the anti-gun Obama administration considered a legitimate use of executive authority.

As BATFE leadership scheme with a potential Biden administration, gun owners must remain vigilant to protect their rights by providing a political counterweight to unwarranted unilateral executive action. Biden has already made clear that he does not recognize the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution and its Second Amendment, so there is no telling the lengths he would go to subvert the law by edict.

Excerpt from:
BATFE Leadership Push Biden to Target Pistol Stabilizing Braces and Unfinished Receivers - NRA ILA

Although the 2021 session of the Texas Legislature convenes on January 12, gun control advocates financed byNew York billionaire MichaelBloomberg and Beto "Hell Yeah, I'll Take Your Guns" O'Rourke wasted no time in announcing their declaration of war on your Second Amendment rights in the Lone Star State. Monday was the first day for the pre-filing of bills, and more than three dozen measures attacking your rights have already been introduced!

Here are some of the highlights of what's to come:

That's after ONE day of pre-filing. Gun owners need to send a resounding message to their state lawmakers in opposition to these gun control bills RIGHT AWAY.Please contact your State Representative and urge them to OPPOSE any and all gun control measures and feel free to list these specifically.

Continue reading here:
Record Amount of Gun Control Legislation Introduced on First Day of Bill Pre-Filing for 2021 Texas Legislative Session - NRA ILA

Georgia Special Election An Embarrassment Of Riches

Georgia -(AmmoLand.com)-Barring a miracle in the courts and some state legislatures willing to act should the court rule, Second Amendment supporters will have an avowed enemy in the White House who will seek to unjustly punish them for the many crimes and acts of madness they did not commit. This needs to be acknowledged (to concede would, to borrow the phrasing of one anti-Second Amendment extremist, be to admit and accept that what happened with the vote counts and the ballots in multiple locations on November 3 was right and based on what we know, what happened wasnt right). I would be lying if I said it was right, and I have pretty much-called things as I see it on Ammoland.

Now comes the task of maintaining a firewall against the plans for court-packing and other methods of permanently rigging the election system against us. Right now, that means working to win the two runoff elections for the Senate seats from Georgia. One, as we noted earlier, is a special election. The good news is that the GOP has Kelly Loeffler running, and in her brief time as an appointed Senator, she has delivered for Second Amendment supporters.

Loeffler introduced the Gun Owner Privacy Act, which would eliminate wiggle room for using the National Instant Check System (NICS) as a back-door means of gun registration. The legislation did not move in the 116th Congress, but if Loeffler is elected to fill the rest of Senator Johnny Isakson, she could reintroduce it in the 117th.

Loeffler also backed S Con Res 40, which would have put both houses of Congress squarely against the may issue laws in states like New York, California, and New Jersey that have really become de facto nonissue states. Such a declaration would be an asset in the litigation that the Second Amendment Foundation is pursuing.

But for the SAFs litigation strategy to prevail, the possibility of the courts being packed with anti-Second Amendment extremists must be foreclosed for as long as possible. To do that, Loeffler needs to be re-elected. While control of the Senate will not be enough to completely prevent the administrative moves that we will likely see be made against our rights over the next four years, it can keep the courts as a bulwark against the worst of them.

To support Loefflers bid to finish Isaksons term, Second Amendment supporters can check out her campaign website. They also need to donate generously to the National Rifle Associations Political Victory Fund. This special election, as well as the regular runoff between Senator David Perdue and Jon Ossoff (which we will discuss later), is for all the marbles.

About Harold Hutchison

Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.

Go here to read the rest:
Loeffler One of the Last Chances to Hold the Line in Georgia - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

John Oliver tore into Donald Trumps pathetic, dangerous refusal to acknowledge Joe Bidens victory on Last Week Tonight, after two weeks of the presidents attempts to delegitimize the results of the election with baseless claims of voter fraud, backed by most congressional Republicans. The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, for example, said Trump is 100% within his rights to challenge the election result, and chastised Democrats on the Senate floor for any lectures about how the president should immediately, cheerfully accept preliminary election results from the same characters who just spent four years refusing to accept the validity of the last election.

First, no one expected Trump to immediately, cheerfully accept the results, Oliver countered. Hes incapable of cheerfully accepting anything apart from blowjobs, Nazi endorsements and the opportunity to scream inside a strangers truck, to harken back to a photo-op from two years or what feels like two decades ago.

Furthermore, Democrats in Washington never refused to accept the election results in 2016: Hillary Clinton formally conceded the morning after election day, and Obama hosted Trump in the White House the day after that. And yet Republicans are trying to defend their support for Trumps indefensible behavior, Oliver continued. One senior White House official asked the Washington Post: What is the downside for humoring him for this little bit of time? which Oliver called a question that never ends well, whether the ones asking it are overworked parents who need a break or the Weimar Republic.

The Trump campaign and its television surrogates on Fox News have lobbed numerous unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud before, during and after the election, and if youre a casual viewer of rightwing media, you might think, Well, there must be something here, they wouldnt be going to all this trouble over nothing, Oliver said. But the thing is, they are. This really is nothing.

Oliver summarily disproved Trump voter fraud claims from Pennsylvania to Georgia to Michigan I could spend the rest of this show debunking stories, he said. The problem is, its endless and often nonsensical. And who knows why Republicans are entertaining this maybe its the fact that Georgia has two Senate runoffs coming up and they want to keep Trump happy so hell help rally voters for him there, Oliver added. Maybe theyre currying favor with him because theyre worried hell be a power broker going forward, I dont know. What I do know is that the answer to the question what is the downside of humoring him? is a lot.

The Trump administrations refusal to acknowledge the elections outcome prevents Biden from receiving high-level intelligence reports or accessing funds for his transition team. More pressingly, it blocks Trump officials from sharing critical details of a distribution plan for a Covid vaccine with Bidens team. As cases surge to new records across the country heading into the holiday season, you really want the new team handling the pandemic to be able to talk to the old team, said Oliver, even if, as I suspect, the old teams plan was just a single white board in Jareds office with nothing on it other than discover cure? circled five times and then a drawing of Donald Trump saying: Good job, new son.

Many of Trumps election fraud claims are laughable or ridiculous, Oliver continued, but the fact is, a lot of people believe stuff like that. And when you continually insist that the election was stolen in big cities and suggest that remedying this calls for the biggest fight since the civil war, to quote a video retweeted by Trump of the actor Jon Voight comparing contesting Biden to battling Satan, things start to get deadly serious. Earlier this month, two armed men were arrested outside the Philadelphia convention center, where city officials were counting ballots. One of the citys commissioners, a Republican, told CBS news that the vote-counting center had received threatening phone calls reminding us that this is what the second amendment is for.

Its clear, Oliver said in response to the situation in Philadelphia, that Trump is playing a dangerous game here, because theres a huge difference between not my president and not the president. And to be clear, people who are that angry are not riling themselves up in a vacuum. Theyve been fed a steady diet of misinformation, bullshit fraud claims, and a victim narrative from outlets like Fox News, Newsmax, OANN and, most importantly, Trump himself.

Trumps continued propagation of election conspiracy theories via Twitter since the election are an appropriate coda to a presidency that has destroyed so many lives, said Oliver. So many of us have lost loved ones, either because you can no longer square your love for them with their love for him, or because they fell down a mind-melting rabbit hole of conspiracy theories that he happily perpetuated, or because he let a deadly virus run wild, and it fucking killed them.

And now, as a parting gift to the country, he concluded, Trump is somehow managing to divide us even further while also hobbling his successor at the worst possible time, which is absolutely unforgivable.

Continued here:
John Oliver on Trump's refusal to concede: 'Absolutely unforgivable' - The Guardian

In 2016, Republican Matt Bliss beat incumbent DFL state Rep. John Persell in a race for the Minnesota House, setting off a heated back-and-forth rivalry in the Bemidji area. After losing by more than 1,500 votes that cycle, Persell ran again in 2018, and won by a mere 11 votes.

This year, Bliss challenged Persell another time, and Bliss took the seat back, winning by roughly the same margin he did in 2016.

State Rep. John Persell

Yet Republicans this year swept the region definitively, winning both state House seats and a state Senate race amid a campaign that, like many others in Minnesota, featured debates on gun policy, police reform and unrest after Minneapolis police killed George Floyd.

Article continues after advertisement

Persell maintains his loss was the result of some unique factors: high turnout in a presidential year, Trump and a GOP campaign centered on fear. Republicans and political experts however, see something else in the results: a changing political tide in the area that may signal a broader shift away from the DFL.

Persell, who spent much of his career as an environmental policy analyst for the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, was first elected to the state House in 2008, and served four consecutive terms before losing to Bliss in 2016.

That year, Persell wasnt the only DFLer in the area to be ousted. Republican Sandy Layman beat long-serving DFL state Rep. Tom Anzelc in the nearby Grand Rapids area. Republican Justin Eichorn also defeated long-time DFL state Sen. Tom Saxhaug in Senate District 5 which is made up of those two House districts.

Donald Trump also handily won SD5 in 2016, a shift from 2012, when Barack Obama won a narrow victory there.

In 2018, however, spurred by dislike of Trump, Persell came back and won his seat in a razor-close race. Ive never felt about any politician the way I feel about Donald Trump, Persell said, calling the president a racist dude with a habit of insulting veterans like John McCain. I said, well, I cant leave politics like this.

Former and future state Rep. Matt Bliss

Like most of the state, turnout increased in the Bemidji-area districts. Persell tallied 1,500 more votes in 2020 than his winning 2018 campaign, but Bliss tacked on more than 3,000 votes over his 2018 performance.

Bliss, who owns a resort on the Cass Lake chain of lakes, said he touted his past accomplishments in St. Paul on the campaign trail, including work to secure money for a veterans home. He criticized Persell for supporting whats known as a red flag law, which allows a judge to take guns from people who are determined to be a danger to themselves or others. My area up here is very, very pro Second Amendment, Bliss said. I couldnt believe my legislator actually co-authored that bill.

A veteran of the war in Vietnam, Persell said he believes a red-flag law would prevent suicides among veterans, not tarnish Second-Amendment rights.

Bliss also said people in his region disliked Minneapolis efforts to dismantle local police and pump money into alternative public safety initiatives. Bliss said voters in his district also abhorred arson and riots that followed police killing George Floyd.

Article continues after advertisement

Persell said he doesnt support defunding or dismantling police, and in fact advocated for more public safety funding, though Bliss said he believes local DFL leaders such as Persell did not push back on the idea with enough force. Your party is pushing this and you dont stand up? Bliss said. Thats a problem.

State Sen. Justin Eichorn

He said Republicans are trying to deflect focus from improving police departments and squashing racism and are instead using fear to politicize the reaction in Minneapolis toward the Floyd homicide. Persell said he wants to give law enforcement more resources to pair with mental health professionals and work with the Legislature to eliminate racism toward Native Americans in the area from police and others.

Defund the police, that phrase was unfortunate, Persell said. It came out of an abundance of frustration for people who saw George Floyd murdered in front of them.

Patrick Donnay, a political science professor at Bemidji State University, said there are several reasons why the GOP has had an advantage in local legislative elections.

For one, when the state created new legislative districts in 2010, the ones centered on Bemidji and Grand Rapids grew larger and incorporated more rural and conservative voters.

The state will redistrict again following the 2020 Census, and due to stagnant population growth compared to the Twin Cities suburbs and exurbs, Donnay predicted the House and Senate districts would grow in area again, making it more difficult for the DFL to win.

Democrats also must put together a more fractured coalition that includes pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ, environmentalist progressives and more conservative voters, including some trade union members who often support Enbridges Line 3 oil pipeline and oppose gun restrictions and abortion. Its these different elements youve got to all pull together and its just a harder group of people to get all on the same page, Donnay said.

Article continues after advertisement

Republicans, on the other hand, have a more straightforward message, Donnay said.

Perhaps anticipating a tough election, Democrats and their allies dropped just $21,961 of independent spending to help Albrechts state Senate campaign, according to state reports filed the week before the election. The GOP and their allies had spent more than $241,000 to help Eichorn. At that point, political groups reported spending $130,322 in favor of Persell, as well as $131,030 in favor of Bliss, however, making it one of the more expensive state House races.

Donnay said Persell and Albrecht also refrained from door knocking out of fears they would spread COVID-19, while Republicans did such in-person canvassing.

Still, Trump remains a wild card for the future of politics in the region. Bliss won the two years Trump was on the ticket, but lost in 2018. Donnay said the president has a rare ability to turn out low-propensity voters and build his own unique coalition. While Trump also fires up the opposition, there is something in him that draws people out, Donnay said. Trump may have juiced turnout even higher when he visited Bemidji in September.

You put an ordinary Republican at the top of the ticket, what happens to that coalition of people that turned out for him in large numbers? Donnay said. Does turnout again return to something like it was in 14 and 18?

Article continues after advertisement

For his part, Bliss said turnout was low in 2018 because his voters got complacent and expected an easy victory. He primarily faulted himself for not working hard enough to get people to the polls. After an 11-vote loss, he said he knew four people within two miles of his house that thought I had it in the bag and didnt vote.

Republicans always had a problem turning out voters in non-presidential years, Bliss said.

He predicted the 2022 election would be close, and while the GOP has an edge, he said its not as wide as in some rural districts. Persell also said the electorate in a non-presidential year will favor Democrats. I have no reason to expect theres going to be an outcome thats going to be more Republican than it was in 2018, he said.

Will Persell challenge Bliss to a fourth matchup?

I have not ruled anything out, he said.

More here:
What the results from a seesaw political rivalry in Bemidji says about the 2020 election - MinnPost

DENVER A shooting range in the historic Five Points neighborhood aims to help educate communities of color about gun safety at an affordable price and in a virtual environment to help pierce through intimidation.

In a red brick building off Washington Street and 24th Avenue, the cars zipping by make more noise than the Second Amendment rights being practiced inside.

The 1770 Armory and Gun Club owners take pride both in their military background and as Black business owners in a market where minorities make up a small margin.

Wanda James and Shawn McWilliams own the shooting range. James served four years in the Navy and McWilliams served eight years in the Marines.

"Given where we are in America and where we are today, it is vitally important that we are able to protect your family and the people that you love," James said.

She says a lot of people in the Black community, "don't feel safe."

Unlike your traditional shooting ranges, this one feels a bit like a video game with real guns.

We wanted to create a virtual range that allowed them (clients) the opportunity to bring their weapon in, fire their weapon efficiently, get comfortable with that weapon, co-owner Shawn McWilliams said.

Customers can bring their personal gun or one will be provided. The gun is loaded with a shell casing equipped with a laser which looks like a bullet. When the trigger is pulled, a pin hits the casing and a laser shoots out. A target on the wall marks the X and a computer program records how close the laser shot landed to the target and awards points.

McWilliams says most people dont know the basics of holding a gun properly.

There is a lot of people that go out and buy firearms who never get an education, so Im against that, McWilliams said.

The virtual shooting range opened its doors in October. The owners hope the virtual environment will appeal to women, particularly those in minority communities who may fear guns or have a negative perspective about them.

The two owners served their country and now theyre working to serve their community to increase education and help prevent a potential tragedy.

The price of ammunition skyrocketed at the beginning of the pandemic and McWilliams says their range is an affordable alternative to get practice.

Just having a gun in your house can actually be a detriment to you and your family if you are not trained on it and you are not comfortable, James said.

If you dont know how to use that firearm, you can take someones life and you can change your life forever, McWilliams said.

Once a month, the owners will hosts Second Amendment Tuesday and invite guest speakers to discuss gun laws.

More here:
Virtual shooting range opens in Five Points and aims to increase gun safety - The Denver Channel

Gun rights organizations have filed a federal lawsuit challenging Maryland Over Handgun Carry Ban. (Dave Workman)

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), and Maryland Shall Issue (MSI) announced the filing of a new federal Second Amendment lawsuit that seeks to restore the right to bear arms by making it possible for law-abiding individuals to carry a loaded handgun on their person in public for self-defense in the state of Maryland. The case, Call, et al. v. Jones, can be found at FPCLegal.org.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Nicole Moss, David Thompson, and Peter Patterson of Cooper & Kirk, Raymond DiGuiseppe of The DiGuiseppe Law Firm, and FPC Director of Legal Strategy Adam Kraut.

The State of Marylands laws make it a crime for a law-abiding person to carry a loaded handgun outside of the home unless they have been issued a permit to carry a handgun. Further, State law prevents individuals from obtaining a license because of further unconstitutional requirements, such as the good and substantial reason requirement, among others. Just like in the Bennett and Greco cases recently filed by FPC, challenging New Jerseys and New York Citys respective bans, Marylands law amounts to a total ban on carry for the average law-abiding person. And consistent with other FPC and SAF cases, the plaintiffs argue here that the Supreme Courts precedents take that policy choice off the table.

The Second Amendment protects both the right to keep a firearm in the home and the right to carry a firearm for protection outside the home, explained Pete Patterson of Cooper & Kirk. Yet, the State of Maryland prohibits typical, law-abiding citizens from lawfully carrying firearms for self-defense outside of the home. This ban on carrying firearms is flatly unconstitutional, and we are bringing this suit to overturn contrary precedent in the Fourth Circuit and to secure the Second Amendment rights of the law-abiding citizens of Maryland.

The State of Marylands laws act as a complete bar to the average citizen from being able to carry a firearm for self-defense, stated Ray DiGuiseppe. Like several other states that have similar subjective provisions which function as an impossible threshold, Marylands good and substantial reason cannot pass constitutional muster. This suit seeks to place all of Marylands citizens on equal footing when it comes to the ability to exercise their natural right to self-defense outside of the home.

Marylands laws, such as its good and substantial reason requirement, destroy the right to bear arms in public, and by so doing, violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, explained FPCs Adam Kraut. As the Supreme Court has already held, the enumeration of the right in our Constitution takes that policy choice off the table. Maryland, like all states, must respect the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms and allow law-abiding people to carry loaded, operable arms in public for all lawful purposes.

Anti-gun Maryland officials have been using this dodge for years, said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. By setting this arbitrary standard, state bureaucrats have been routinely denying Maryland citizens their right to bear arms. The state cannot be allowed to continue this discriminatory practice because it essentially gives public officials the power to deny someones fundamental, constitutionally-protected rights on a whim.

On behalf of our members, Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. is proud to announce that weve partnered with the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Second Amendment Foundation, and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in bringing a new legal challenge to Marylands unconstitutional wear and carry permit requirements, said Maryland Shall Issue President Mark Pennak. The good and substantial reason requirement for issuance of a permit imposed by Maryland law has long been used to effectively disqualify the vast majority of law-abiding Marylanders of their right to carry a handgun for the lawful purpose of self-defense. The time has come to end Marylands subjective and discriminatory law and regulations. The people of Maryland have a fundamental right to protect themselves in public.

The right to bear arms is not a second-class right nor a mere privilege that only some lucky people are granted by the government on a case-by-case basis, said FPC President and FPF Chairman Brandon Combs. It is constitutionally and morally offensive for the Maryland government to criminalize the exercise of this fundamental human right. The Constitution itself provides the only justification necessary for law-abiding adults to exercise their fundamental, individual right to bear arms in public. FPC will proudly fight to restore the full scope of the Second Amendment in the Old Line State and throughout the nation in this and other cases.

Recently, Firearms Policy Coalition has filed several major federal Second Amendment lawsuits, including challenges to New Jerseys carry ban (Bennett v. Davis), New York Citys carry ban (Greco v. New York City), the federal ban on the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition by federal firearm licensees (FFLs) to adults under 21 years of age (Reese v. BATFE), and Californias Handgun Ban and Roster laws (Renna v. Becerra). FPC also has an upcoming trial in its lawsuit challenging Californias assault weapons ban (Miller v. Becerra).To follow these and other legal cases FPC is actively working on, visit the Legal Action section of FPCs website or follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

FPC is urgently seeking individual and FFL plaintiffs for a number of lawsuits that are being prepared to challenge laws and policies that infringe on fundamental rights, including (but not limited to):

If someone you know meets the criteria above, or if you would be interested in participating in litigation as a supporting FFL, please contact us:

If you would like to support FPCs Call case and many other pro-Second Amendment lawsuits, legal action, and research, please chip in $5, $10, $25, or whatever you can at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/donate or Join the FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org.

About Firearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization. FPCs mission is to protect and defend constitutional rightsespecially the right to keep and bear armsadvance individual liberty, and restore freedom through litigation and legal action, legislative and regulatory action, education, outreach, grassroots activism, other programs. FPC Law is the nations largest public interest legal team focused on Second Amendment and adjacent fundamental rights including freedom of speech and due process, conducting litigation, research, scholarly publications, and amicus briefing, among other efforts.

About Firearms Policy Foundation

Firearms Policy Foundation (firearmsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPFs mission is to defend the Constitution of the United States and the Peoples rights, privileges, and immunities deeply rooted in this Nations history and tradition, especially the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms, through research, education, legal action, and other charitable programs.

Read more from the original source:
Gun Groups Sue State of Maryland Over Handgun Carry Ban - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

COOS BAY, Ore. -- The Second Amendment Sanctuary Ordinance,Measure 6-181,has made it on the ballot this year in Coos County.

The measure aims to create a sanctuary zone for the Second Amendment. That means Coos County officials would not be able to enforce state and federal gun control regulations if passed.

ELECTION COVERAGE

Stay with KEZI 9 News leading up to Election Day 2020 and on Nov. 3 for the latest information about races and measures and what it means for you. Click here to learn more.

If the measure passes, conceal carry laws and bans preventing the mentally ill from owning a gun would be removed.

However, the measure technically doesnt apply to background checks because they are done through private gun retailers, not county officials.

We think people should be allowed to go to court to defend themselves before they have their guns taken away, said Coos County resident Rob Taylor.

Taylor told KEZI 9 News that he helped draft and campaign for the measure.He said the measure was designed to counter Oregons Red Flag Law, which allows the courts to take guns away from people who may want to hurt themselves or others.

People may be afraid of someone who lives with them, said Taylor. But that doesnt justify the fact that people have the right to have their day in court.

However, the proposed measure would apply to count officials and not city governments or police departments, which could still choose to enforce gun control restrictions. Also, gun control restrictions would also continue to be in place for convicted felons, even if the measure passes.

In Coos County, there have been mixed opinions about the measure.

Coos Bay resident Tristan Avelis told KEZI 9 News that he will be voting no.He said it is extremely irresponsible and hes concerned it could make the sheriffs job a lot harder.

What these people are saying is that they want to prohibit the enforcement when they want to break rules at a state, federal or municipal level, said Avelis.

However, Joshua Walters, the owners of Orco Gunworks in Coos Bay said he will be voting yes.

He said everyone has the right to owning a gun, and the proposed measure is the first step in securing that right.

If someone was killed with a gun, its the guns fault, he said. Guns are bad. Lets get rid of guns. No, it doesnt work that way. If I wanted to hurt a bunch of people, I would steal a garbage truck and run it through a school.

KEZI 9 News reached out to the sheriffs office for comment, but they did not get back to us.

Original post:
Second Amendment sanctuary on the ballot in Coos County - KEZI TV

To the Editor:

According to the Second Amendment of the Constitution, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." The word, Arms, is deliberately capitalized, a common practice at the time used for emphasis. Since Thomas Jefferson and many others owned private cannons, the largest weapon available to them, Arms, to the framers clearly meant more than just small arms one can easily "bear".

The word, gun, is found nowhere in the Constitution, a carefully crafted document. According to the preamble, one of the main purposes of government is to "insure domestic Tranquility," also capitalized. To correctly interpret the intentions of the framers, everything following the preamble, including the 10 original amendments, must be weighed in light of the Constitution's stated purpose.

At the time the Second Amendment was drafted, there was no federal army, no national guard and no organized police force, a fact of history ignored by the modern National Rifle Association's absurd position, which used to be far less radical than today. There were also no large urban populations or police protecting them, gravely endangered by modern assault weapons. And, who knows what horrific Arms may be contained in a future brief case or even smaller space?

For many years, the NRA and mainstream media were guilty of drawing a nonexistent, artificial line down the center of the Second Amendment, limiting the debate to gun ownership. To insist this amendment permits unlimited ownership of modern assault weapons, is no more constitutionally rational than to claim it allows for unlimited private ownership of bombs, chemical weapons and space-ray machines, modern Arms unknown to the American founders.

Based on the NRA's narrow-minded interpretation, we have just as much right to own private nuclear bombs and bio-weapons as we do to own a multi-round handgun, none of which existed in the 18th century. If we wish to have a society at all, then the 21st century question is not if we are going to restrict private Arms ownership but rather, in what manner are we going to restrict it.

For the record, if anyone has the right to argue in favor of restricting the ownership of assault weapons, it's survivors of far too many mass shootings. As America's founders wisely allowed for, we can always amend what the Constitution says. A perhaps better and much saner idea would be to amend the NRA, by convincing a reluctant media to point out it's highly deceptive and historically irrational position.

The NRA has no constitutional or other right to limit the Second Amendment to a debate over guns, or to ignore the intentions of America's founders clearly stated in the preamble: To insure domestic Tranquility. For a constitutional position to be correct, it must fall within this clearly stated purpose.

Are politicians and American media really honest and fair in regard to what the Second Amendment and the rest of the Constitution actually says? Does the NRA really defend the Second Amendment? You decide.

Richard Aberdeen

Hermitage

Original post:
Does the NRA really defend the Second Amendment? | Opinion - Main Street Nashville

Preserving the Second Amendment right to bear arms is critical for women in situations where they face life-threatening domestic abuse, argues a law professor at George Mason University.

Certainly it is difficult for a woman to adequately defend herself against a man, but when armed for her self-defense she has a chance to deter him and survive, Joyce Lee Malcolm, a Second Amendment Constitutional Law professor at GMUs Antonin Scalia Law School, wrote in a recent Liberty & Law Center Research Paper.

Restraining orders against abusive partners often fail to deter violence, she maintained, citing a study in the Journal of American Psychiatry and the Law, which found that out of nearly 36,000 cases where protection orders had been involved, 18 percent had been violated.

The study also found that 50 percent of those with a temporary restraining order reported unwanted contact in that time frame, while 75 percent of women reported some unlawful contact within the first year of the orders implementation.

In other words, Malcolm claimed, the police failed to protect the victim from their abuser, and many of them have lost their lives because of itbut she maintained law enforcement is not necessarily at fault.

The police simply cannot be on the spot, even when they have reason to know that a violent crime may occur, she wrote.

Malcolm used the example of domestic violence to counter some of the most common arguments against the right to bear arms, arguing that the right to self defense is unalienable, and shouldnt be ignored in this time of peril.

Noting that the claim that citizens dont need firearms because police offer sufficient protection, Malcolm argued that advances in police technology and stiff criminal penalties have not made people safer, according to Malcolm.

Malcolm called it a false belief that citizens licensed to carry a weapon are a danger to public safety and cause an increase in crime.

To support that claim, Malcolm compared FBI violent crime statistics to the timeframes when each state allowed open carry or concealed-carry permits.

From 1993, when violent crime was at its highest, to 2018, when serious violent crime fell 51 percent, Malcolm notes that nearly every state adopted some form of concealed or open carry legislation.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics also found that violent crime correlating with that same period of time fell 71 percent.

In short, the rate of violent crime plummeted at the same time that the numbers of Americans permitted to carry a gun soared, Malcolm explained.

Malcolm conceded that success has many fathers and that changes in the economy and approaches to law enforcement could have impacted the plummeting violent crime rates as well.

But she argued there is a connection between lawfully arming citizens and thousands of incidents where Americans were able to protect themselves and their families.

A 2013 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found the number of times firearms were used for self-defense ranged anywhere between 500,000 times and 3 million times a year.

In another study, the authors point out that as many as 400,000 people a year claim not only to have used a gun to defend themselves, but have also used a firearm to defend others.

This has almost certainly saved lives, and cannot be dismissed as trivial, the paper said.

To offer another perspective about what America would look like if the right to self defense is taken away, Malcolm pointed to England, where, she claimed, the right to self-defense has been effectually removed.

Following World War I, the British Parliament required citizens to get licenses from their local police departments and fit a strict list of requirements that only got stricter as time went on.

However, Malcolm notes that criminals dont abide by the law; so they are not following these handgun outlaws, allowing them to be the only citizens in Britain with firearms.

Moreover, for even law abiding citizens in a state of crisis, Extreme force has been ruled unjustifiable when there was an attempt merely to attack or destroy property, including someone breaking into your house, Malcolm writes.

She continues, The public has been instructed to leave their defense to the police, and to walk on by and call the police if they see someone being attacked.

Not surprisingly, Malcolm writes, crime in Britain following these restrictions soared.

Nevertheless, Malcolms argument was countered by an assertion in the New York Times that gun deaths remain extremely rare in Britain, and very few people, even police officers, carry firearms.

To that end, Malcolm concludes, This British history eerily evokes the policy preferences of todays American progressives eager to take guns out of the hands of citizens in the name of public safety, leaving them to rely for protection on the police.

Malcolm quotes Supreme Court Justice ClarenceThomas, who once referred to the Second Amendment as a constitutional orphan.

If so it is an orphan neglected by the courts, but clung to by the people who are not waiting for the authorities to come by later to pick up the pieces, but who are prepared to defend themselves and their loved ones, Malcolm wrote.

Joyce Lee Malcolm is the Patrick Henry Professor of Constitutional Law and the Second Amendment at George Mason Universitys Antonin Scalia Law School.

The full paper can be accessed here.

This summary was prepared by TCR staff writer Andrea Cipriano

Read the original:
Domestic Violence Victims Need the Second Amendment: Paper - Crime Report