Category Archives: Second Amendment

It seems a lot of people have a misconception of the meaning of the Second Amendment; The Bill of Rights gives no one anything. What it does do is stop the government from infringing on your right that is inherent to you just being a person. This goes way back 200 years in British common law.

As for getting the soldiers and National Guard on our streets to make them safe. Cant do that because of Posse Comitatus. It makes it illegal for federal troops to be used as a police force. If you dont think this is a problem, check on the fiasco of the aftermath of the Boston bombing where the police dressed like the military went door to door without warrants. If you didnt want to comply, the police broke into your house and searched it anyway.

There are estimated between 5 million and 10 million AR-15s in America. As of this writing, there have been 20 AR-15s used by school shooters. That is 0.0002 percent of AR-15s. You are worried about this? This is going to sound heartless but your child is more likely to be hit by lightning than be killed by a school shooter. It isnt callous, it is just math.

If you really want to understand the Second Amendment, read The Federalist Papers written by the real writers of the Constitution James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay in particular numbers 29 and 36.

James Hoover

Wailuku

Clarification on the Aug. 29 letter titled Gardeners dumping green waste along the roadside:At the Central ...

The United States is now energy independent. We dont need nuthin from nobody energy-wise. I have only a ...

During the destruction and unnecessary cutting the flag on the library building in the puuhonua on Sept. 6, ...

Twenty years ago we rented a condo in Wailea. We discovered a litter of abandoned kittens in the bushes. We knew if ...

The TMT developers have the legal right to build their telescope. Likewise, those opposed to the project have the ...

Very simply, you can leave. You can leave right now. Come back if you want, dont come back, thats okay ...

Read more from the original source:
'Federalist Papers' explain the Second Amendment | News, Sports, Jobs - Maui News

Dave Hardy, an attorney in private practice in Arizona, thinks this is the term when the Supreme Court finally decides whether a constitutional right to carry a firearm extends beyond the front door.

Gun rights advocates like Hardy, whos been writing about the Second Amendment since the 1970s, have waited for years for the Supreme Court to hear a new challenge to a gun control law.

You dont do much work in the field, in terms of earning money, but its been something that interests me, Hardy said.

The wait has gone on since the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision, which established that the Second Amendment wasnt about arming militias. Instead, according to the court, it guarantees an individuals right to keep and bear arms. The only guarantee spelled out in that decision, authored by the late Antonin Scalia, was the right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense.

The decision explicitly left room for further regulation: Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, wrote Scalia. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

What the court has protected, and what it has prohibited

Existing prohibitions, such as those preventing felons from owning firearms or against carrying in certain places, were cleared by the court in the Heller decision. Two years later, the Supreme Court protected the individual right to keep and bear arms from state regulation in 2010 decision McDonald v. Chicago.

In the past decade, the court has refused to hear any challenges to appeals courts or state court rulings. These include a case that upheld a ban on assault weapons in a Chicago suburb, and Californias licensing and background check restrictions, among many others.

Sometimes youll see the Supreme Court rule and the circuit courts become very enthusiastic about the ruling. And then theyll expand it as far as they humanly can, said Hardy. Thats not how it has worked with the right to keep and bear arms. This is one where theyre decidedly reluctant. I dont know if I would say hostile, but decidedly reluctant to go one inch further than the Supreme Court is prepared to take them.

This has left gun rights advocates increasingly frustrated.

The New York case

The justices have accepted New York State Rifle and Pistol Associations appeal in its case against New York Citys law repealed in June prohibiting gun owners from carrying their firearms outside the home, except to designated gun ranges inside city limits.

Theres agreement among observers on both sides of the gun control debate that New Yorks law was unusually restrictive and the Supreme Court is likely to strike it down.

Arguments are scheduled for Dec. 2, but the court could still decide that, because city legislators repealed the law, the case is moot and dismiss it. The state also passed a law preventing similar regulations in the future.

There are signs that the court will let it go ahead. They could have dismissed it at any point since New York changed the law. Instead, the court required the city to file a brief in support of the law. And the case has found a spot on the calendar.

David Kopel, a legal scholar at the Cato Institute and a gun rights advocate, says the court should still address the law.

It was upheld by the Second Circuit, which said that banning people from taking their guns outside the city for target practice isnt even a Second Amendment issue. Kopel said. So theres still that precedent thats out there.

Kopel is one of the advocates whos been pressing the court for years to expand on Heller and McDonald and expand the right to carry a gun outside the home. In their view, lower courts have been too eager to uphold restrictions on gun ownership.

Politics vs. The Second Amendment

The New York case arrives at the Supreme Court at a time when the debate over gun control is near the top of the political agenda in many states and in Congress. On the federal level, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives has passed bills expanding background checks, banning high-capacity magazines and supporting red flag laws.

A new ban on military-style rifles is widely supported by the leading Democratic presidential candidates. None of these has been passed by the Senate or signed into law. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, has said he would introduce gun control measures for a vote in the Senate if they have the presidents support.

With all that in mind, attorneys for March For Our Lives, a youth-led movement founded in the aftermath of the mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida, filed a brief arguing the court should keep this movement in mind and not make too broad of a ruling on gun rights.

Theyre asking the court to leave enough flexibility in the review of regulations to let public opinion and political developments have a say, said Ira Feinberg, the lead counsel for March For Our Lives.

Feinberg added that, while the New York law is unusually restrictive, the issues at stake are much larger. The court, in an opinion striking down that law, could apply whats known as strict scrutiny to any regulation of gun rights. Strict scrutiny would require the government to make the case for why any regulation is necessary and would effectively guarantee public safety. That would likely lead to the overturning of the New York law.

To drive the point home, the March For Our Lives brief led with a series of anecdotes of people affected by gun violence.

The plea that we make in the brief is that the court should not adopt a standard like strict scrutiny, which would make it impossible to justify any regulations here, Feinberg said. Theres an urgent need for regulation.

Kopel argues thats exactly why the Constitution guarantees certain rights.

There have been times where there were at least seemingly public majorities that have been in favor of all kinds of censorship or abuse of religious or ethnic or racial minorities, said Kopel. And, yes, the Constitution closes off the discussion about that.

What the justices records mean

Since the Heller case was decided, Justices Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia have left the court. Scalias replacement, Justice Neal Gorsuch, did not write any opinions on gun control regulations before coming to the Supreme Court. Gorsuch did sign onto a dissent by Thomas in 2017 denying review of a California law restricting public carry.

Thomas wrote: The Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it.

And Kennedys replacement, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, is viewed as more hostile to gun regulations than his predecessor. In a 2011 dissent while on the D.C. Court of Appeals, Kavanaugh argued the government could not ban guns like the AR-15 because they were in common use and not historically banned.

He doesnt care about what effect any of these laws will have on public safety, said Allen Rostron, a law professor at the University of Missouri Kansas City and formerly a lawyer for Brady, a gun control advocacy organization.

[Kavanaugh] says that the right to keep and bear arms should be interpreted and applied based strictly on the text of the Second Amendment, the history of it and tradition, Rostron said.

According to Rostron, the court could choose to apply a level of review to government regulation that would make any gun control law impossible to defend.

If they said, We want proof, really compelling proof about what exactly this gun law would do and how it would improve safety, Rostron said, its very hard to prove it definitively one way or the other.

Coming up with standards for gun regulations

Rostron argues there are two areas the court still has to sort out: Just where does the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms apply? Precedent has established the right inside the home. How much of a right do citizens have to carry firearms outside the home?

The other core question: just how strong is the right to keep and bear arms? Who can be denied it and on what grounds? How many hoops can people be made to jump through before getting a firearm?

He says many existing restrictions, like on felons or people with domestic violence convictions owning firearms, are likely to be left in place. But licensing requirements might start getting a harder look.

Certainly the places in the country that have more restrictive requirements, more discretion with law enforcement and that sort of thing for gun licensing, would potentially be struck down, I think, Rostron said.

There are cases challenging New Jerseys licensing rules: Rogers v. Grewal, Cheeseman v. Polillo and Ciolek v. New Jersey that have all been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A Massachusetts case, Gould v. Morgan, challenging the licensing system in that state has also been appealed to the Supreme Court.

Gun rights and a history of discrimination

Nezida Davis, an Atlanta-based attorney for the National African American Gun Association, filed a brief asking the Supreme Court to rule against New York Citys law.

The brief points out a long history of prohibiting gun ownership among African Americans, going back to the days of slavery and continuing through the Jim Crow era. It argues that licensing systems, in which sheriffs decide who has the right to a license to carry, violate the Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection.

These types of restrictions, where government agencies decide whether you have the right to get a firearm, weve found that leads to discrimination, Davis said.

While theres widespread agreement that New Yorks law wont get the Supreme Courts approval, the big question everyone interested in the gun debate is waiting to learn is: How far are they going to go in striking it down?

Guns & America is a public media reporting project on the role of guns in American life.

Read more here:
What's At Stake In The Guns Case At The Supreme Court? - KCUR

Q&A of the Day Supreme Courts ruling regarding the 2nd Amendment

Each day Ill feature a listener question thats been submitted by one of these methods.

Email: brianmudd@iheartmedia.com

Twitter: @brianmuddradio

Facebook: Brian Mudd https://www.facebook.com/brian.mudd1

Todays entry...

Every morning when you claim that Red Flag Laws are this great thing that somehow is keeping us safe, and that they are not being abused, I feel nauseous and ready to chuck my breakfast all over the car's dashboard. Let me start by saying that Red Flag Laws by definition are an abuse, they ignore due process, they ignore the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th amendments. No matter how you look at Red Flag Laws they infringe on the constitution, or what's left of it, and are a CLEAR violation. First thing here is that you have NOT committed a crime, nor are you even suspected of committing a crime! This is a VERY DANGEROUS precedent where we are telling judges that you can be found guilty of thoughts, or conscience.

Bottom Line: I hear what youre saying and where youre coming from generally. Im also sorry for the occasional bouts of nausea that's certainly not the intention. Heres the deal. Regardless of the issue, I feel its important to establish the facts and formulate opinions and views accordingly. There are many who feel that any gun control is an infringement on their constitutional rights. I understand where that comes from, however thats not how the Supreme Court has ruled. The United States Supreme Court most recently affirmed 2nd Amendment Rights in a 2008 court ruling. Within that decision the court stated the following:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense.

At the same time the court also ruled the following:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

The Supreme Court has specifically ruled that laws restricting mentally ill individuals from owning firearms are constitutional. We may personally agree or disagree with the ruling, but the fact remains. Given that its constitutional Ive watched the implementation in Florida, evaluated the use in South Florida, and discerned that there havent been any clear abuses in our state with over 2,200 orders carried out thus far. Also, while studying counties across the state, there wasnt any clear political bias in the carrying out of orders. One of the most conservative counties in our state with a Republican sheriff is responsible for carrying out the most orders on an absolute basis and when adjusting for population. Also, its noteworthy that we havent had any mass shootings in our state since the inception of this policy.

Im a constitutional conservative and a pragmatist who goes where the facts take me. Im not an ideologue and I understand that may at times be frustrating because its somewhat unusual but hopefully you can respect where Im coming from...information driven rather than agenda driven. And even in the most literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in which were compelled to take back our country from a repressive government...I still dont want mentally ill folks armed up next to me in battle. Just saying.

Read this article:
Q&A of the Day Supreme Court's ruling regarding the 2nd Amendment - On Air With Ryan Seacrest

Editor:

Mr. Michael Cash's recent letter, claiming the Second Amendment to the Constitution was enacted to support slaveowners, caught my interest. He sees the "well-regulated militia" terminology as the Founding Fathers' assurance to slave-owning states that they could maintain armed "slave patrols" to terminate slave rebellions.

Mr. Cash cites no evidence to back up this old and oft-repeated fish-story; a wise decision, considering it was originally dreamed up by the widely discredited radio commentator and conspiracy theorist Thom Hartmann. Not wishing to repeat his mistake, I invite readers to look online for Dr. Paul Finkelman (a past fellow in law and humanities at Harvard Law School), who specifically puts Mr. Cash's tall tale to rest.

Notwithstanding the inaccuracy of his claim, Mr. Cash's remarkable implication is that today's supporters of the Second Amendment believe in some longstanding Constitutional right to use their firearms to terrorize and murder any perceived foes. I deplore his contempt for the Constitution, its creators, and innocent, law-abiding Americans exercising their Constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court has ruled that gun ownership is an individual right rather than a state's right to operate a militia. In point of fact, back then the militia composed all able-bodied males, naturally including their right to keep and bear arms. The founders wanted the means of force dispersed not centralized in the hands of the government. The amendment was written by men who had recent experience with the British trying to disarm Americans.

Predictably, Mr. Cash goes on to criticize Del. Todd Gilbert and Republicans for failing to take any action on gun control, therefore being to blame for mass murders. Nonsense. Republicans want to curb violence in our society, but in accordance with the Constitution. The gun laws proposed in Richmond in 2019 would succeed only in abridging the rights of law-abiding gun owners while ignoring the impact of illegal firearms.

The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are amazing and very special documents. I have sworn to defend them and will continue to do so.

Bill Rogers, New Market

Read the original post:
Letter to the Editor: Rebuttal to letter about the Second Amendment - Northern Virginia Daily

We hope you can join us for the 2019 NRA-ILA Firearms Law & The Second Amendment Symposium that will be held Saturday, October 5th, in Virginia at the Doubletree Hilton Richmond-Midlothian.

Focusing on recent developments in our nations courts and legislatures regarding the Second Amendment, speakers will discuss a variety of topics among multiple panels. The Symposium will feature top Second Amendment attorneys covering topics that range from recent, critical court decisions, federal and state level updates, as well as critical legislative and political updates on defending and advancing gun owners' civil rights in Virginia.

Saturday, October 5, 20191021 Koger Center Blvd.North Chesterfield, VA 232359:30 a.m. 3:30 p.m. (Registration 9:30 a.m. - 9:45 a.m.)Lunch will be provided

This event promises to present a thought-provoking discussion of one of the most relevant and important freedoms in the Bill of Rights. Each registrant will receive valuable information including panelists written materials on their respective subjectsan excellent source for future reference. For guests who are attorneys, this years event may once again meet state requirements for continuing legal education. The event, including all materials and lunch, is free. RSVP is required above.

Please direct questions to Suzanne Anglewicz, sanglewicz@nrahq.org.

More here:
Join Us for the 2019 NRA-ILA Firearms Law & The Second Amendment Symposium Next Saturday October 5th - NRA ILA

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said in an interview aired Tuesday that judges make poor politicians, that he misses late Justice Antonin Scalia, and that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to a citizen keeping a gun next to their bed.

In a wide-ranging interview with PBS' Charlie Rose, Breyer said he thought Chief Justice Roger Taney, who wrote the 1857Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that found blacks could not be American citizens, "tried to be a politician."

"And he thought that -- perhaps he thought, that by reaching a decision saying a black person was not a person, that's roughly what he held, unbelievable. But, he thought he would help prevent the Civil War...if anything, he helped bring about the Civil War because Benjamin Curtis wrote a great dissent showing, I think, at the time, his decision was wrong. It's not using hindsight, but really wrong. Abraham Lincoln picked it up, read Taney's decision and said this is a shocker, then used the dissent in his speech at Cooper Union," Breyer noted.

"Which was the speech that propelled him to the head of the Republican Party, and helped get him the nomination and then all followed. He was really an abolitionist at heart. They knew that in the South and then, the Civil War followed," he added. "So, if that was Taney's idea, he was wrong. Judges are not good politicians. They may have some exposure to politics, but that's what I mean when I say junior league."

Breyer recalled Scalia being a masterful writer. "The job of a judge in an appellate court is, in an opinion, to explain the reasons why he or she reached this opinion," he said. "Now, I don't think that that calls for or requires what you might be able to do in terms of great phrasing but if you can do that, it can be an advantage. But what I meant because people -- when Nino and I use -- I miss him, I do."

Breyer stressed that "it's a big country" with 320 million people who "think a lot of different things," thus "it is not such a terrible thing, if on the Supreme Court, there are people who have different, somewhat different jurisprudential outlooks."

"You know, Scalia probably likes rules more than I do. He tends to find clarity in trying to get a clear rule. I have probably more of a view that life is a mess," the justice said, adding that it comes down to "basic outlook about the Constitution, how it applies today to people who must live under it."

"Those are where the differences come up. It's not politics."

Breyer said people shouldn't look at the High Court as a political arbiter. "It is not the Supreme Court that tells people what to do. [The Constitution] sets boundaries. We are, in a sense, the boundary commission," he said. "...But don't make the mistake of confusing a tough question at the boundary with the fact about what the document is like, because the document leaves vast space in between the boundaries for people themselves through the ballot box to decide what cities, towns, states, what kind of a nation they want. That's what this foresees, and if you do not participate, it won't work."

See the original post:
Breyer: Second Amendment Not About 'the Right of an Individual to Keep a Gun Next to His Bed' - PJ Media

The Districts top lawyer on Thursday asked a federal appeals court to rehear a challenge to the citys strict limits on carrying concealed firearms.

Attorney General Karl A. Racines decision follows a ruling last month from a three-judge panel that blocks the Districts requirement of a good reason to obtain a permit because the requirement prevents most residents from carrying guns in public places.

City officials say the restrictions are common sense gun rules needed to promote public safety in the nations capital. Racine wants a full complement of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review the panels ruling against the city.

Review by the full court is necessary due to the importance of this question, which affects the safety of every person who lives in, works in, or visits the District, according to the new court filing. Through their elected representatives, District residents have decided that public carrying without good reason is inconsistent with public safety.

The citys permitting system remains in effect while the appeal is under review. If the court declines to revisit the panels decision, the order to permanently block enforcement of the good reason requirement would take effect seven days later.

In its 2-to-1 ruling last month, the panel found the D.C. law in violation of the Second Amendment.

Bans on the ability of most citizens to exercise an enumerated right would have to flunk any judicial test, wrote Judge Thomas B. Griffith, who was joined by Judge Stephen F. Williams.

Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented, siding with the city and finding that the regulation passes muster because of the Districts unique security challenges and because the measure does not affect the right to keep a firearm at home.

[Appeals court blocks enforcement of D.C.s strict concealed-carry law]

The Supreme Court in 2008 used a D.C. case to declare for the first time an individual right to gun ownership apart from military service. But the high court has shown little interest in going further to decide whether the Second Amendment applies outside the home.

In June, for instance, the Supreme Court declined to take up a California case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said the Second Amendment does not protect the right to carry a concealed weapon in public.

[Gun ruling raises an issue the Supreme Court has been reluctant to review]

Under the Districts law, residents who want a permit to carry a concealed firearm must show that they have good reason to fear injury or a proper reason, such as transporting valuables. The regulations specify that living or working in a high crime area shall not by itself qualify as a good reason to carry.

As of July 15, D.C. police had approved 126 concealed-carry licenses and denied 417 applicants, according to the police department.

The Districts requirement is similar to rules in other states, including Maryland, New York and New Jersey.

Petitions for rehearing by a full complement of judges on the D.C. Circuit are filed frequently, but the court rarely grants such requests, taking up less than a handful each term.

A single judge may call for a vote on such a petition, but a rehearing requires sign-off from a majority of the 11 active judges on the court.

See original here:
D.C. attorney general wants federal judges to look at city's strict gun ... - Washington Post

Guy Relford practices gun law in Carmel and is the host of The Gun Guy radio show on WIBC. (Submitted photo)

Carmel attorney Guy Relford has truly earned his nickname, The Gun Guy.

Relforc teaches firearms safety classes and hosts a radio show on WIBC called The Gun Guy. His law firm focuses on gun law cases. He literally wrote the book on gun safety. Hes the author of Gun Safety and Cleaning for Dummies.

Relford, a longtime Carmel resident and Carmel High School graduate, started his law firm in the Carmel Arts & Design District six years ago. He had worked for two decades doing global litigation for Dow Chemical but discovered changes at his job would require moving to Michigan. He loved Carmel and didnt want to move, so he took an early retirement and thought about his next move.

Relford has always been interested in guns. Hes been a certified firearms instructor for 25 years, so he decided to dedicate his career to helping others understand gun rights.

I was already self-educated on Second Amendment law, and so I thought Id dedicate my practice to that, he said.

Relford handles criminal and civil cases. In criminal cases, he often defenses clients accused of a gun crime but whom he believes was legally exercising Second Amendment rights. Cases range from firearm possession to self defense.

Guy Relford takes aim. He is a firearms instructor, attorney and radio show host. (Submitted photo)

If I think all they were doing is exercising their Constitutional right, then I defend them, he said.

Relford also handles civil cases, such as incidents where clients sue an employer or a municipal government. For example, an employer might place a ban on firearms legally locked out of sight in a vehicle, and Relford might defend a gun owner who works at that business. He said hes sued several city governments that have tried to pass laws that unconstitutionally restrict the Second Amendment.

But Relford said hes no extremist. Hes a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and said additional gun laws are largely unnecessary, but he doesnt defend all gun owners at all times. Gun safety is important to him, which is why he started his second business, Tactical Firearms Training.

I dont think people realize how serious most gun owners take safety, he said. Are there irresponsible gun owners? Sure, but there are irresponsible drivers on the road. In fact, I get as angry as anyone about irresponsible gun owners, especially since I wrote a book about gun safety.

Relford said some dangerous people simply shouldnt have guns, but he said there are already enough laws. Inevitably, he said some gun laws could make people less safe because only criminals would have guns.

I always say there are no gun-free zones, he said. There are areas where you can have a gun and there are areas where only criminals have guns because they arent following the gun-free zones law. Even in an airport or a courthouse where they have metal detectors, the air marshals and police officers still have guns. So there are no gun-free zones.

Relford said people often ask him about gun issues, such as if its OK to shoot a coyote if its in your yard. He said in most cases its not worth the risk of a charge of criminal recklessness with a deadly weapon, which could be a felony. People ask him about stories in the news, such as the Fishers convenience store clerk who pointed a gun at a shoplifter in July. In that case, Relford said its not smart to commit a felony in order to prevent someone from committing a misdemeanor crime.

Relford is a frequent guest on local talk shows, such as Chicks on the Right and Tony Katz on WIBC radio. After some successful appearances, he was given his own show that airs from 5 to 7 p.m. Saturdays on WIBC.

I cant give legal advice on the radio, but I can tell you what the law is, he said.

State Rep. Jerry Torr, R-Carmel, has been a guest on his radio show and said he really respects Relford.

The great thing Ive noticed is that he wont guess when it comes to the law, he said. He wont make something up on the fly. Hell look into it and report back later. But hes really knowledgeable and has a great sense of humor.

Tony Katz, a radio host on WIBC, said that Relford is a great resource for information.

Great gun knowledge, great legal knowledge, and a demeanor that begs good conversation and avoids the kind of vitriol that ends a conversation before it starts, Katz said. Its good have people like him around. Its also way safer.

Relford said hes never had to fire a gun in self defense, but hes been in scary situations where hes been glad to have a gun.

I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen, he said. I dont think my kitchen is going to catch on fire, but I still feel safer having it there.

The four rules

According to Guy Relford, there are Four Rules of safe gun handling.

1. Treat every gun as if it is loaded.

2. Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.

3. Always keep your finger (and anything else) away from the trigger until your sights are on the target and you are ready to shoot.

4. Always be sure of your target and anything aligned with your target (in front or in back) before you pull the trigger.

Gun storage

Always store every gun so that it is inaccessible to anyone who is not trained or authorized to handle your firearm. This doesnt mean hidden, or on a high shelf or the top of the armoire. It means locked up. There are quick-open gun safes that allow gun owners to access a firearm in a second or two but still keep the gun inaccessible to others, particularly young children.

Read the original here:
'The Gun Guy': Radio host Guy Relford defends 2nd amendment from Carmel office - Current in Carmel

A very strange thing has happened since last weekends dreadful violence in Charlottesville. White supremacists used virtually every form of weapon except guns, yet somehow the Second Amendment is now under fire. Even worse, those who lawfully exercise the right to keep and bear arms now have fewer defenders when they also choose to speak.

It started with Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe. In remarks that were oddly enough edited out of a New York Times article, McAuliffe claimed that 80 percent of the people here had semiautomatic weapons. He further asserted that militia members had better equipment than our state police. He also said that white supremacists had weapons stashed around the city.

The Virginia state police disputed the governors claims, stating that theyd specifically looked for weapons stashes and no weapons were located. Further, they assured the public that they were not outgunned by militias. A spokesperson said the police were equipped with more-than-adequate specialized tactical and protective gear for the purpose of fulfilling their duties to protect the people present at the protests.

No matter. Claims that gun-toting militia members had somehow chilled free speech rocketed around the Web. Yet who, exactly, was deterred from speaking last weekend? Not only were people speaking, they were shrieking, chanting, yelling, and arguing. Few were deterred even from brawling.

Then, yesterday, a more significant shoe dropped. The Wall Street Journal reported that the American Civil Liberties Union will no longer defend hate groups seeking to march with firearms. In other words, the groups anti-gun stance is now directly influencing its First Amendment advocacy. Its executive director, Anthony Romero, told the Journal that the decision was in keeping with a 2015 policy adopted by the ACLUs national board in support of reasonable firearm regulation.

For all its flaws and inconsistencies in other areas, the ACLU had been one of the last well-resourced national legal organizations that were truly non-partisan in defending First Amendment freedoms such as the right to march and speak in Charlottesville. Indeed, a local ACLU chapter had defended the alt-rights liberties at that very protest. But now the ACLUs message was clear: lawfully exercise Second Amendment rights, and well turn our backs on your First Amendment freedoms.

The law already prohibits true threats, and there are an array of legal restrictions on the place and manner of bearing arms depending on the jurisdiction and location. Under existing precedent, groups that engage in threats or violate local firearms laws face severe legal consequences. The ACLUs position, however, is that it will not represent a category of organizations that are completely compliant with the applicable laws.

The ACLU is a private organization, and it has complete discretion to choose its clients, but its action reveals the extent to which arguments about civil liberties are becoming dangerously partisan and short-sighted. The ACLU has enjoyed an enormous surge in membership and donations since itpositioned itself as the law firm of the #Resistance, but a number of these new members are completely ignorant of the organizations traditional First Amendment work and were furious when they found out the ACLUs role in protecting the alt-rights constitutional rights.

Thus, yet another negative result of last weekends deadly violence is that both the First and Second Amendments are under increasing cultural pressure. Rather than focus on the actual violence that caused so much pain and harm last weekend, activists are renewing calls for so-called hate-speech restrictions, and theyre increasing demands for restrictions on the right to bear arms. The ACLU is a key pressure point. Rights that dont enjoy a robust defense are not rights at all. The Constitution is not a self-executing document.

At this point, the gun-rights debate is almost beyond the reach of facts. A weekend that was notable mainly for an act of vehicular terror has become a pretext for discouraging the exercise of Second Amendment rights. Sadly, our First Amendment debates are racing in the same direction. All too many Americans seek the power to suppress and shame more than they cultivate the ability to rebut and persuade. Alt-right drivel isnt a threat to the constitutional experiment. A culture that values censorship over debate, however, is.

And lest we think these categories are easy, and that its possible to suppress the rights of the worst people without touching the civil liberties of the mainstream, consider this. I used to work at an organization that the Southern Poverty Law Center considers a hate group, the Alliance Defending Freedom. Its deemed a hate group in large part because it holds to an orthodox Christian view of sexual morality and gender identity. I hold those same views. Im also a concealed-carry permit holder. My wife and I carry a weapon virtually all the time because of threats, ironically enough, from the alt-right. Should the ACLU defend my right to speak?

Sadly, there are many Americans who would say no. They hate my viewpoint too much. They hate guns too much. The allure of power and control is too strong. They see little value in dissent, especially on the most sensitive cultural issues, and they utterly reject the concept of an armed citizenry. Yet even terrible crimes shouldnt cause us to retreat from our commitments to liberty.

Our constitutional republic and our culture of free speech have endured and prospered in the worst of attacks, events far worse than even the dreadful crimes in Charlottesville. It suffers, however, in the face of cultural retreat and surrender. The alt-right is too pathetic to warrant the slightest compromise. Yet thats exactly what the ACLU did, and short-sighted Americans applauded.

The alt-right hates American traditions and American liberties. Why grant it the slightest influence over American life?

David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

Visit link:
After Charlottesville, the First and Second Amendments Are Under Fire - National Review

ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said, If a protest group insists, No, we want to be able to carry loaded firearms, well, we dont have to represent them. They can find someone else.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the policy shift that Romero highlighted is focused on hate groups, which are listed as white nationalists and neo-Nazis. Romero did not say whether ACLU protection would also be denied to Black Panther protesters who are armed or to communist party members who could rally for the left while armed.

The policy shift comes after the ACLUs Virginia branch helped organizers of the Unite the Rightprotest secure a permit to assemble in a Charlottesville park [on August 12]. When the city of Charlottesville pushed to move the protest away from the park, the ACLU stood by protest organizer Jason Kessler and won the day.

On August 15,Breitbart News pointed to Southern Policy Law Center (SPLC) reports that Kessler is rumored to be aformer Occupy Wall Street activist and supporter of former President Barack Obama.

According to SPLC:

Rumors abound on white nationalist forums that Kesslers ideological pedigree before 2016 was less than pure and seem to point to involvement in the Occupy movement and past support for President Obama.

At one recent speech in favor of Charlottesvilles status as a sanctuary city, Kessler live-streamed himself as an attendee questioned him and apologized for an undisclosed spat during Kesslers apparent involvement with Occupy. Kessler appeared visibly perturbed by the womans presence and reminders of their past association.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host ofBullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter:@AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Read more from the original source:
ACLU Refuses to Defend Protesters Exercising First and Second Amendments Together - Breitbart News