Category Archives: Second Amendment

The National Rifle Association hit back at criticism of its latest Second Amendment rights advertisement after a top Senate Democrat called the ad "sickening."

Over the weekend, the NRA published a video featuring cancer survivor Carletta Whiting.

In the video, Whiting who says she has a fibromyalgia disability highlighted the importance of gun ownership during the COVID-19 outbreak.

In the video, Whiting said, "What's in my control is how I defend myself if things go from bad to worse. I know from history how quickly society breaks down during a crisis, and we've never faced anything like this before, and never is the Second Amendment more important than during public unrest."

She also added that California liberals are even "lining up because they know the government will not be able to protect them."

Whiting can be seen firing off rounds from her AR-9 rifle.

The pro-2A organization captioned the video, "Americans are flocking to gun stores because they know the only reliable self-defense during a crisis is the #2A. Carletta Whiting, who's disabled & vulnerable to #coronavirus, asks Dems trying to exploit the pandemic: Why do you want to leave people like me defenseless?"

At the time of this writing, the video has received more than 919,000 views.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) issued a scathing tweet directed at the NRA and its latest advertisement.

He wrote, "Mainstream gun owners have left the NRA, so now they're reducing to telling people to stockpile assault weapons, instead of food, to get ready for the coming Coronavirus civil war. So sickening."

In a statement, Amy Hunter the organization's director of media relations told Fox News that Murphy is simply trying to push an anti-gun agenda.

"Sen. Murphy is either being intentionally disingenuous or is obtuse," Hunter said. "Carletta Whiting is one of millions of Americans who feel vulnerable and who know that when crime happens, the police are minutes away despite their best intentions."

"Right now," she continued, "anti-gun politicians are using the pandemic to try and strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights. Meanwhile, gun sales are increasing because good people are worried their government won't be able to protect them. This is when Americans rely on their Second Amendment rights the most."

According to Fox News, interviews conducted in recent days with gun store owners and sellers indicated that sales this month, on average, have spiked anywhere between 30% and 400%, compared with a "normal" time period.

More:
NRA goes on the offensive after Senate Democrat attacks its latest ad featuring a cancer survivor as sickening - TheBlaze

Gov. Phil Murphys executive order to close all non-essential retail business has forced gun dealers, who were experiencing a spike in sales amid the anxiety surrounding the coronavirus pandemic, to shut down.

On Saturday, the online service used to process background checks for firearm dealers, the New Jersey National Instant Criminal Background Check System, told stores they can no longer process requests.

Per Executive Order 107, (Murphy) is ordering the residents of New Jersey to stay home, directing all non-essential retail businesses closed to the public, a notice on the online system states. At this time, the order includes New Jersey Firearms State Licensed Dealers.

The order does not specifically name gun dealers as a non-essential business. However, it also doesnt list them among those deemed essential, such as liquor stores, office supply shops and grocery stores.

In Illinois, Gov. JB Pritzker in his executive order considered firearm and ammunition suppliers and retailers an essential business for purposes of safety and security.

New Jersey gun owners and Second Amendment advocates take issue with Murphys position on firearm dealers.

Gov. Murphy surrounds himself with armed guards, said Alexander Roubian, president of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society. Clearly he understands the benefit of the Second Amendment. Why is his life more valuable?

Roubian pointed to the spike in gun sales in recent weeks as proof why these businesses should be considered essential.

When the police have no legal obligation to protect citizens, which was upheld by the United States Supreme Court, yes, any person would believe gun stores that sell many tools for self-defense is extremely essential, he said.

NJ Advance Media reported Thursday that gun shop owners were working long hours to keep up with demand.

It has been relentless, said Joe Hawk, the owner of Guns & Roses in Toms River.

Hawk said he was fielding calls from desperate customers asking what he had in stock.

Theyre not even asking the price, he said.

Kyle Sherman, a co-owner of Shore Shot Pistol Range in Lakewood, reported last week having his busiest day in years. On Sunday, he said he can live without selling guns, but would still like to provide ammo.

I consider us essential business because we not only supply everyday citizens with ammunition and firearms, he said, but also local retired and active police officers.

Alex Napoliello may be reached at anapoliello@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @alexnapoNJ. Find NJ.com on Facebook.

Have a tip? Tell us. nj.com/tips

Get the latest updates right in your inbox. Subscribe to NJ.coms newsletters.

Read the rest here:
Gun dealers are not considered an essential business, and theyre not happy about it - NJ.com

Garrett Neese/Daily Mining GazetteHoughton County resident Matthew Wright speaks in support of a resolution to declare Houghton County a Second Amendment sanctuary county. The county board voted the resolution down 3-2 Wednesday night.

Houghton Daily Mining Gazette

HOUGHTON By a 3-2 vote, the Houghton County Board of Commissioners recently voted down a revised resolution on becoming a Second Amendment sanctuary county, a month after tabling the original proposal.

Commissioners Glenn Anderson, Roy Britz and Gretchen Janssen voted against the resolution. Chairman Al Koskela and Vice Chairman Tom Tikkanen supported it.

Tikkanen opted for a resolution declaring Houghton County a sanctuary county over others based on resolutions passed in other counties. They stopped short of a sanctuary declaration, but passed resolutions supporting Constitutional rights.

Tikkanen said while the resolution is symbolic, it sends an important message to Lansing about the value Houghton County puts on gun rights.

There are limitations constantly being placed on individual ownership Its a slow cumulative effect that eventually many fear are going to result in our Second Amendment rights being virtually nonexistent, he said.

In an interview Thursday, Britz said he was put off by the usage of sanctuary. Despite it being a non-binding resolution, he said, people could take the resolution as a sign that the county will be a refuge from gun laws.

The word sanctuary may give the thought to certain persons that its a place to come and bring some of their problems with them, he said Thursday. I dont believe in that.

Britz said he would gladly have voted for another resolution given to commissioners modeled on one passed in Huron County. That one asked state and federal legislators to maintain the Constitution as is.

I would absolutely have supported that one, he said Thursday. It didnt say anything about sanctuary. The word sanctuary just didnt fit with me.

The revised resolution removed several provisions commissioners had objected to at the previous meeting. In a list of means the commission would take to protect the right to bear arms, the board removed the power to direct the law enforcement and employees of Houghton County to not enforce any unconstitutional law.

Britz approved of the change, but said a clause directing the county not to use county resources or funds towards laws judged to violate the Second Amendment was effectively a backdoor to accomplish the same thing.

I believe its the responsibility of people to vote into office at the state and federal level people we trust that will support the Constitution and not try to change the amendments, he said. We have other avenues rather than to start doing county-level resolutions that mean nothing.

Three other paragraphs were removed from the resolution introduced in February. Two affirmed the boards support for constitutional carry legislation, which would allow people to carry a gun without a license, and stated no citizens should be arrested or prosecuted for exercising those rights. The other stated the rights in the Second Amendment and Article 1, Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution apply to all arms, including modern sporting rifle.

The meeting drew about 60 people, down from the 100 or so who attended Februarys meeting. Most who spoke during public comment supported the resolution.

Houghton County Prosecutor Brittany Bulleit did not speak for or against the resolution, calling it more of a political issue than a legal issue. She did give the board some relevant case law and other legal issues. Under state law, the county board cannot pass ordinances that contravene state laws, she said.

While I understand the proposed document is a resolution, and not an ordinance, I think it is still important to note this distinction because it sets forth a legal limitation in powers, she said. Further, many requests included in the resolution are not included in the powers given in the statute. That idea should be considered in deciding what portions of the resolution, if any, to pass.

Bulleit also referenced MCL 123.1102, which says local units of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulations on guns except as provided by state or federal law.

Thus, many requests in the resolution could potentially go against the above statute and would have no legal backing, unless the state or federal government passed their own laws, Bulleit said.

The longterm legal repercussions of a declaration as a sanctuary county are unknowable, Bulleit said.

In a statement on the amendment introduced in February, the Michigan Attorney Generals office said it views Houghton County and others resolutions as a policy issue. Because the board still has to follow Michigans firearms laws, the resolution would have no actual effect.

We would view Houghtons proposed resolution as a policy/political statement by the Houghton County Board of Commissioners, which we respect as their right to engage in free speech always with the reminder that of course Houghton County remains subject to all enacted firearms legislation, the statement said.

After the vote, Hancock resident Justin Kasieta, who brought the Second Amendment resolution to the board, said he was disappointed.

I think that the community supports this resolution and were going to keep pushing for it, he said. Commissioners may see a response to what they voted for in November.

By Houghton DailyMining GazetteONTONAGON The Village Council held their annual public hearing on the ...

SAGOLA An accidental death occurred at the Louisiana Pacific Plant along M-95 in Dickinson County on Friday, ...

See the rest here:
Taking time to think | News, Sports, Jobs - Marquette Mining Journal

The Committee for Stronger Rural Communities (CSRC), a Super PAC founded to support Rep. Collin Petersons re-election bid, aims to raise $1,000,000 this cycle and is already half-way there.

Organized late last year by representatives of American Crystal Sugar Co., a farmer-owned cooperative based in Moorhead, the Super PAC aims to keep the Seventh District representative competitive in what could be one of the most expensive House races in 2020.

The Committee fundraising target is $1 million for the cycle, dedicated to Rep. Petersons race, said a representative for the Super PAC. To date weve raised more than $500,000.

Super PACs cannot coordinate directly with campaigns, meaning no conversations about messaging or events, but there is no limit on the amount of money they can spend on the race. As to why theyre supporting Peterson: It is a large rural district. As far as emphasis on sugar, Collin Peterson has always been a supporter of sugar, Kelly Erickson of Hallock, a board member for American Crystal Sugar and the Chair of the Super PAC, told AgWeek last year.

Minnesota is the largest producer of sugar beets in the U.S. And American Crystal Sugar is one of the most powerful organizations in Minnesota when it comes to campaign contributions. According to year-end campaign finance filings for 2019, CSRC received $150,000 from American Crystal Sugar Company and $25,000 from Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative, both large sugar beet presences in the Seventh District. But it also received money from sugar companies around the country: $50,000 from United States Sugar Corp and $25,000 from Florida Crystals Corp, two large producers of sugarcane based in Florida; and $10,000 from Michigan Sugar Company Growers PAC. (Peterson is a strong supporter of the U.S. sugar program, a complex web of available loans, tariffs, export programs, and other trade measures that benefit U.S. grown and processed sugar.)

Until this month, it was unclear if Peterson would run for re-election. For years, there has been speculation by Republicans that Peterson would retire: so much so that, in 2014, Peterson said he would run until 2020 because Republicans made him mad by continually bringing it up.

This month, he confirmed that he is running again.

There arent many like me left in Congress, he said in a statement announcing his re-election. Rural Democrats are few and far between, and Im concerned that rural America is getting left behind.

In that same statement, Peterson quoted supporters of his run, including Curt Knutson, a sugar beet farmer and American Crystal Sugar board member.

Theres no better news for farmers and agriculture than to hear that our Chairman Collin Peterson is running again, said Knutson. Ive said many times that I hope he lives to be 100 years old and that I die with him as my Congressman.

In 2014, conservative groups and Republicans spent over $3.5 million in an attempt to elect former state Sen. Torrey Westrom to Petersons seat. The race this year could very well be more expensive.

This cycle, Peterson has a few potential Republican opponents: former Lt. Governor Michelle Fischbach has raised the most money and is the clear favorite among Washington Republicans, while Dave Hughes, who was the endorsed Republican candidate last cycle, is running again. Others are running too: Jayesun Sherman of Windom, Army veteran Joel Novak of Alexandria, and Dr. Noel Collis, a gastroenterologist from Albany.

CSRC started running radio advertisements in October, emphasizing Petersons independence in Congress and their belief in his support for rural communities. The Super PACs website describes four other issue areas as reasons to support Peterson: his stances on the Second Amendment, health care, agriculture and veterans.

On the Second Amendment, they say that Peterson has consistently defended Americans right to bear arms and has an A rating from the National Rifle Association. On health care, they said that he looks for bipartisan solutions. And on agriculture and veterans issues, they emphasize his experience: Peterson is the Chair of the House Committee on Agriculture and he serves on the House Committee on Veterans Affairs and in the Congressional Rural Veterans Caucus.

Peterson is very much aware that the sugarbeet industry wants him to stay in the race.

Theres work to do, and I can do the work. I think I know the job, I know how to do it. The sugar beet guys especially were freaked out that I wasnt going to run we just got them another $285M disaster deal thats going to bail them out of what happened last fall, Peterson told Prairie Public Broadcasting earlier this month.

I just figured, what the heck? Two more years.

Originally posted here:
A new Super PAC wants to raise $1 million to re-elect Rep. Collin Peterson. It's already halfway there - MinnPost

Joshua Feinzig and Joshua Zoffer: A constitutional case for gun control

Was Stevenss linguistic intuition correct? No. The phrase keep and bear arms was a novel term. It does not appear anywhere in COEMEmore than 1 billion words of British English stretching across three centuries. And prior to 1789, when the Second Amendment was introduced, the phrase was used only twice in COFEA: First in the 1780 Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, and then in a proposal for a constitutional amendment by the Virginia Ratifying Convention. In short, keep and bear arms was not a term of art with a fixed meaning. Indeed, the meaning of this phrase was quite unsettled then, as it had barely been used in other governmental documents. Ultimately, a careful study of the Second Amendment would have to treat keep arms and bear arms as two separate linguistic units, and thus two separate rights.

We performed another search in COFEA, about the meaning of keep arms, looking for documents in which keep and arms (and their variants) appear within six words of each other. The results here were somewhat inconclusive. In about 40 percent of the hits, a person would keep arms for a collective, military purpose; these documents support Justice Stevenss reading. And roughly 30 percent of the hits reference a person who keeps arms for individual uses; these documents support Justice Scalias analysis. The remainder of the hits did not support either reading.

We could not find a dominant usage for what keep arms meant at the founding. Thus, even if Scalia was wrong about the most common meaning of bear arms, he may still have been right about keep arms. Based on our findings, an average citizen of the founding era would likely have understood the phrase keep arms to refer to possessing arms for both military and personal uses.

Finally, it is not enough to consider keep and bear arms in a vacuum. The Second Amendments operative clause refers to the right of the people. We conducted another search in COFEA for documents that referenced arms in the context of rights. About 40 percent of the results had a militia sense, about 25 percent used an individual sense, and about 30 percent referred to both militia and individual senses. The remainder were ambiguous. With respect to rights, there was not a dominant sense for keeping and bearing arms. Here, too, an ordinary citizen at the time of the founding likely would have understood that the phrase arms, in the context of rights, referred to both militia-based and individual rights.

Based on these findings, we are more convinced by Scalias majority opinion than Stevenss dissent, even though they both made errors in their analysis. Furthermore, linguistic analysis formed only a small part of Scalias originalist opus. And the bulk of that historical analysis, based on the history of the common-law right to own a firearm, is undisturbed by our new findings. (We hope to publish this research, which also looked at other phrases in the Second Amendment, such as the right of the people, in an academic journal.)

Read the original here:
The Mysterious Meaning of the Second Amendment - The Atlantic

Photo by Gage Skidmore courtesy of Creative Commons CC BY-SA 2.0; image composite by A1F staff

Former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders are effectively in a two-horse race for the Democratic Partys presidential nomination after the results of Super Tuesday.

After a dismal showing, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg suspended his campaign and endorsed Biden. Sen. Elizabeth Warren remains in the race, but has yet to win a single contest, including her home state of Massachusetts.

Now that the race is down to Biden and Sanders, the two are vying for the partys nomination, but their stances on the Second Amendment are, according to their public positions, almost identical.

Both support expanding background checks, red-flag laws and complete bans of the most commonly owned semi-automatic rifles in the country, which each improperly labels as assault weapons on their respective campaign websites. This is just the beginning of their anti-gun agendas.

To take it a step further, Biden explicitly supports a repeal of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Biden believes manufacturers should be held liable for the acts of criminals and that law-abiding citizens should pay the price, the cost of which is the ability to protect themselves from those very same criminals.

Biden has now also secured several endorsements from former candidates, including Michael Bloomberg, Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg. He also recently called upon failed presidential candidate Beto ORourke to take care of the gun problem on the eve of Super Tuesday. ORourke, a former congressman from Texas, made headlines in a September debate when he said, Hell yes, were going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.

Sanders, meanwhile, has also made it clear that he is an anti-gun opportunist who will cave to the demands of his radical base, no matter how extreme their stances may be. His campaign website lists a plethora of anti-gun measures he would take if elected. Perhaps most concerning among them is his buyback program, a plan to confiscate popular semi-automatic firearms.

Both Biden and Sanders also vow, in no uncertain terms, to take on one of the oldest civil-rights organizations in the world: the NRA. In fact, they both display their contempt for the organization almost immediately on their gun-safety pages.

Whoever the Democrats nominee ultimately is (including an improbable comeback from Warren, who has a plan to restrict your rights), they see the Second Amendment as a problem that needs to be solved.

Visit link:
Remaining Democrat Candidates All Oppose the Second Amendment - America's 1st Freedom

In late January, thousands of pro-gun activists descended on Richmond, Virginia, to protest a package of gun reform bills advancing through the state General Assembly. Many of them were armed. The specter of a massive open carry demonstration was difficult for anyone to ignore, but the day was also significant because of the people not in attendance outside the state Capitol grounds.

Fearing violence, untold numbers of counter-protesters diverted their plans to advocate for legislation on the same streets as the pro-gun activists. Among those who sat it out that day were members of a student group advocating for undocumented immigrants and gun reform advocates who had planned to hold a vigil in memory of gun violence victims. In their absence, the loudest voices in the proverbial room were those in support of gun rights.

Some legal commentators found the dynamic vexing and questioned if the protest was a healthy picture of free speech and debate. Garrett Epps, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Baltimore, was one of many to surface concerns about the First Amendment rights of the unarmed. In The Atlantic, he declared, The right to bear arms in political debate is not the power to speak for oneself; it is, at least implicitly, the power to silence others. The late Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens acknowledged this clash of rights in a dissent from 2010. Your interest in keeping and bearing a certain firearm, he wrote, may diminish my interest in being and feeling safe from armed violence.

Below, we look at the free speech implications of open carry demonstrations, and whether officials can regulate guns in protest settings to foster free speech.

Is there a First Amendment right to attend a protest free of guns?

The short answer is no, at least not right now. While some may feel that armed protesters trample on the speech rights of others, the reality is that no court would currently hold that carrying guns openly at a demonstration violates First Amendment rights to free expression and political assembly.

A First Amendment lawyers argument against open carry at protests would go something like this: Firearms violate the speech rights of unarmed protesters because they chill expression through intimidation.

But this reasoning suffers from two major problems. For one thing, freedom of speech protects individuals from government intrusion on expression, but in armed protest settings, the government is not directly involved in silencing anyone. Its not the government carrying the guns, said Timothy Zick, a law professor at William and Mary Law School who has written extensively on the issue. Indirectly, yes, the government allows people to carry guns. But its the individuals decision to carry it.

Moreover, chills on expression, which are not outright bans on speech, violate the First Amendment only under certain circumstances. Zick said, It can be a struggle to deal with the legal concept of chill versus the human concept of it.

For a chill on expression to cross over into a free speech violation, the threatening consequence of speech has to be immediate like getting arrested for your dissenting speech, losing your job for your political views, or being shot at a protest. It has to be some kind of tangible, compulsive, coercive impingement on you, said Zick. Ones own perception that speech could get them into trouble is called subjective chill, and the Supreme Court has held that First Amendment claims based on that definition are dead on arrival.

As a result, a court would likely find no immediate threat to people who dont attend protests because of open carry practices. As Zick noted, Your willingness to rally amongst guns depends heavily on what you believe about guns. Not everyone thinks that guns are inherently dangerous, and open carry laws by themselves dont guarantee that people will use their firearms in a dangerous way. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit relied on this reasoning in a 2018 case about concealed carry in public university classrooms in Texas. A group of University of Texas professors argued that the presence of weapons in class would chill their First Amendment academic freedoms. But the court found they were choosing to self-censor their speech based on the hypothetical future decisions of students.

Do some scholars take exception to the current state of the law?

Some legal experts disagree with the jurisprudence and believe that guns in public spaces are incompatible with a functioning democracy. In a paper arguing that the Second Amendment right should exist only in the privacy of ones home, Darrell Miller of Duke Law School argued, The presence of a gun in public has the effect of chilling or distorting the essential channels of a democracy. He added, Valueless opinions enjoy an inflated currency if accompanied by threats of violence.

Likewise, Mary Anne Franks of the University of Miami has argued that, under the sway of the gun lobby, the Supreme Court has transformed the Second Amendment into a superright one with the ability to override others with the power to cancel out the freedom of speech by intimidating people into silence. This chilling effect, she noted in her book The Cult of the Constitution, is felt most acutely by the least powerful members of society.

If theres no First Amendment case against armed protest, can open carry events still be restricted?

Governments are far from helpless to stop people from bringing guns to protests. There are many different gun regulations we could use that preserve both Second Amendment rights and free speech rights, Zick said.

First, its important to note that the Supreme Court has itself contemplated limits on the right to bear arms, including bans on guns in sensitive places. Many of these locations, including Capitol grounds and university campuses, are common protest sites. Local governments can grant protest permits on the condition that the gathering is free of firearms without running afoul of the Second Amendment. Similarly, local officials can require guns to be unloaded or restrict the types of firearms protesters may carry.

Furthermore, its worth remembering that the Second Amendment does not grant gun carriers the right to commit crimes. Existing criminal laws prohibit brandishing or discharging firearms outside of the context of self-defense. As The Trace has reported, states could enforce very old laws that penalize people for going armed to the terror of the public. And many states, including those that permit open carry, have banned paramilitary activity for over a century. These laws prohibit private militias from assembling and holding drills in public. Virginia recently relied on its own anti-paramilitary statute to prevent some groups at the 2017 Charlottesville rally from protesting with guns in the future. (A bill currently making its way through the General Assembly would amend that law with language prohibiting armed persons from assembling with the intent to intimidate others.)

Still, this face-off of rights is far from over. There are more states that permit open carry, and more people are starting to exercise that right, said Zick. Armed protest is going to be part of the protest landscape.

The law in this area is still developing, and courts will likely consider how armed protests play out in real life. If violence transpired at future open carry rallies, he predicted that might bolster a First Amendment claim that weapon-toting demonstrators are limiting others free speech. I think it would be difficult for any judge, whether they admitted it or not, to ignore news reports of mayhem in the streets.

Lower courts will also have to follow new pronouncements from the Supreme Court, which has yet to establish a Second Amendment right to carry in public. But Zick believes that will change. I think the writing is on the wall, he said.

View original post here:
When Protestors Carry Guns, Does It Impede Others Free Speech? - The Trace

On Thursday, following the uproar that exploded on Wednesday after Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) issued an apparent threat targeting Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh at an abortion activist rally, prompting an avalanche of criticism launched toward Schumer for his remarks, actor James Woods warned that attitudes like Schumers were the precursor to something far more dangerous, and precisely the reason that the Second Amendment exists.

Woods took note of the unprecedented step Chief Justice John Roberts took by issuing a statement condemning Schumers remarks. Woods tweeted, When the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court must take the extraordinary step of admonishing a United States Senator from targeting the lives of named Justices, we are in civil war territory. The Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment for violent haters like Chuck Schumer.

As The Daily Wire reported, Schumer had ranted, Republican legislatures are waging a war on women, all women, and theyre taking away fundamental rights. I want to tell you Gorsuch; I want to tell you Kavanaugh; you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You wont know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.

Roberts fired back:

This morning, Senator Schumer spoke at a rally in front of the Supreme Court while a case was being argued inside. Senator Schumer referred to two Members of the Court by name and said he wanted to tell them that You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.

Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.

That prompted a spokesman for Schumer to rip Roberts, accusing him of being influenced by the political Right, saying, For Justice Roberts to follow the right wings deliberate misinterpretation of what Sen. Schumer said, while remaining silent when President Trump attacked Justices Sotomayor and Ginsberg last week, shows that Justice Roberts does not just call balls and strikes. The spokesperson continued by claiming, It was a reference to the political price Rs will pay for putting them on the court and a warning that the justices will unleash major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision.

Woods has been clear about the necessity of the Second Amendment before; in February 2018 he answered a tweet from a leftist who stated on Twitter that they supported a violent overthrow of Trump. Woods responded, And this is why we have a Second Amendment, and why the Founding Fathers stated specifically that the rights therein shall not be infringed.

Woods is clearly conservative, but his dedication to the American system supersedes partisan politics. Despite the fact that he strongly opposed former President Barack Obama, in September 2016 he noticed a tweet stating We must kill and eat Obama. Woods alerted the Secret Service, writing,.@SecretService You might be interested in this person

As The Wrap reported, Woods later tweeted, I may disagree with #Obama on virtually everything. To threaten his life allegedly in jest is appalling and a federal felony @SecretService.

Read the original post:
James Woods Blasts Schumer: 'The Founding Fathers Wrote The Second Amendment For Violent Haters Like Chuck Schumer' - The Daily Wire

The Union Cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister, Narendra Modi has approved the Companies (Second Amendment) Bill, 2019 to amend the Companies Act, 2013. The Amendment Bill, inter alia, would enable the listing of Indian companies on stock exchanges in foreign jurisdictions.

The listing of Indian companies in foreign stock exchanges is expected to increase the competitiveness of Indian companies in terms of access to capital, broader investor base and better valuations. The framework for enabling such listing under the foreign exchange and securities laws would befinalised by the Ministry of Finance in consultation with Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Reserve Bank of India and the Securities and Exchange Board of India.

Powered by Capital Market - Live News

(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Originally posted here:
Companies Second Amendment Bill 2019 To Enable Listing Of Indian Companies On Exchanges In Foreign Jurisdictions - Business Standard

The Left has long lost this debate, but they keep trying to relitigate it on the campaign stump. The Second Amendment grants the individual right to keep and bear arms. That was the landmark D.C. vs. Hellerdecision, though it applied only to federal enclaves. The McDonald v. Chicago decision extended this right to the states proper. But the Left is obsessed with the militia portion of the amendment: 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

The Atlantic has a good piece about this whole debate, including an analysis of the opinions from the late Justices Antonin Scalia and John Paul Stevens on Heller. The publication explained that they used two databases Corpus of the Founding Era American English (COFEA) which has 140 million words from documents between 1760-1799 and Corpus of Early Modern English, a massive text bank based on one-billion words British English from 1475 and 1800, to analyze their opinions. To no ones surprise, Scalias majority opinion was more grounded in historical fact than Stevens, though both had inaccuracies. Still, even in the afterlife, Scalia is still right for the most part (via The Atlantic):

Scalia concluded that the phrase bear arms unequivocally carried a military meaning only when followed by the preposition against. The Second Amendment does not use the word against. Therefore, Scalia reasoned, the phrase bear arms, by itself, referred to an individual right. To test this claim, we combed through COFEA for a specific pattern, locating documents in which bear and arms (and their variants) appear within six words of each other. Doing so, we were able to find documents with grammatical constructions such as the arms were borne. In roughly 90 percent of our data set, the phrase bear arms had a militia-related meaning, which strongly implies that bear arms was generally used to refer to collective military activity, not individual use. (Whether these results show that the Second Amendment language precludes an individual right is a more complicated question.)

Further, we found that bear arms often took on a military meaning without being followed by against. Thus, the word against was sufficient, but not necessary, to give the phrase bear arms a militia-related meaning. Scalia was wrong on this particular claim.

Next, we turn to Justice Stevenss dissent. He wrote that the Second Amendment protected a right to have and use firearms only in the context of serving in a state militia. Stevens appears to have determinedthough his exact conclusion is somewhat unclearthat the phrase keep and bear arms was a unitary term of art. Such single linguistic units, called binomials or multinomials, are common in legal writing. Think of cease and desist or lock, stock, and barrel. As a result, Stevens concluded, there was no need to consider whether keep arms had a different meaning from bear arms. Therefore, he had no reason to determine whether keep arms, by itself, could refer to an individual right.

Was Stevenss linguistic intuition correct? No.

[]

Based on these findings, we are more convinced by Scalias majority opinion than Stevenss dissent, even though they both made errors in their analysis. Furthermore, linguistic analysis formed only a small part of Scalias originalist opus. And the bulk of that historical analysis, based on the history of the common-law right to own a firearm, is undisturbed by our new findings.

Oh, and as for the militia aspect of all of this, well, it looks like the Second Amendment was written in a way to show that gun ownership was applicable to the military, or militia at the time, and individual use. The Washington Free Beacons Stephen Gutowski noted this part of the article as well:

So, yeahthis really hasnt been a debate since 2008, when Heller was decided, but keep hitting against that wall, liberal America.

More:
Debate is Over Concerning This Part of the Second Amendment? - Townhall