Category Archives: Second Amendment

Press release:

Congressman Chris Collins response to the Union-Sun & Journal's recent editorial (Aug. 11):

My bill would restore New Yorkers Second Amendment rights and doesnt supersede states rights.

I do believe in States' rights, the need for local control and the 10th Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing state rights. However, I want your readers to know my steadfast belief that states like New York should not have the ability to take away the Constitutional rights of their citizens. Under no circumstances should these basic rights be denied, and federal action is warranted in a situation where a state is infringing on the rights of any American.

The Constitution is the law of the land, and the Founding Fathers produced a document with a clear vision regarding Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment can only be interpreted one way, and that is it guarantees that Americans have the right to own a firearm.

My proposed legislation, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA), has sparked a needed conversation about the Second Amendment rights granted to Americans in the Constitution. In 2013, Gov. Andrew Cuomos Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act infringed upon the rights of law-abiding New Yorkers by instituting strict rifle and shotgun regulations. As you pointed out, these regulations were put in place purely for political purposes.

SAGA focuses specifically on protecting Second Amendment rights, and in no way is taking away the rights of states. When a state crosses the line and starts to implement regulations that are in stark contrast to the basic rights given to Americans, action needs to be taken. That is exactly why I am proposing my law to rein in the unconstitutional policies that Cuomo forced into law.

Cuomo overstepped with the SAFE Act, and my proposal to repeal much of the law has had a great deal of support. SAGA isnt hypocritical; it is a sincere effort to bring back the freedoms given to New Yorkers by our Constitution when it comes to owning a firearm. Law abiding citizens should not be punished because of onerous and unconstitutional state regulations.

It is my duty as an elected representative to make sure my constituents are protected, and that includes protecting the basic rights granted to them in the Constitution. The SAFE Act only curbed the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding New Yorkers, instead of providing them with a safer place to live as promised by the governor.

The SAFE Act has done nothing to help our communities and has only taken away our freedoms. It is time we end this disastrous law for all New Yorkers and revert back to what the Founding Fathers intended for our nation.

See related: Collins proposes new measures for protecting Second Amendment rights

Read the rest here:
Second Amendment | Wyoming County Free Press - Wyoming County Free Press

Photo Members of a white supremacists militia stand in Charlottesville, Va., on Saturday. Credit Joshua Roberts/Reuters

When militia members and white supremacists descended on Charlottesville, Va., last Saturday with Nazi flags and racist placards, many of them also carried firearms openly, including semiautomatic weapons. They came to intimidate and terrify protesters and the police. If you read reports of the physical attacks they abetted, apparently their plan worked.

They might try to rationalize their conduct as protected by the First and Second Amendments, but lets not be fooled. Those who came to Charlottesville openly carrying firearms were neither conveying a nonviolent political message, nor engaged in self-defense nor protecting hearth and home.

Plain and simple, public terror is not protected under the Constitution. That has been the case throughout history. And now is the time to look to that history and prohibit open carry, before the next Charlottesville.

Historically, lawmakers have deemed open carry a threat to public safety. Under English common law, a group of armed protesters constituted a riot, and some American colonies prohibited public carry specifically because it caused public terror. During Reconstruction, the military governments overseeing much of the South responded to racially motivated terror (including the murder of dozens of freedmen and Republicans at the 1866 Louisiana Constitutional Convention) by prohibiting public carry either generally or at political gatherings and polling places. Later, in 1886, a Supreme Court decision, Presser v. Illinois, upheld a law forbidding groups of men to parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized. For states, such a law was necessary to the public peace, safety and good order.

In other words, our political forebears would not have tolerated open carry as racially motivated terrorists practiced it in Charlottesville. They did not view open carry as protected speech. According to the framers, the First Amendment protected the right to peaceably not violently or threateningly assemble. The Second Amendment did not protect private paramilitary organizations or an individual menacingly carrying a loaded weapon. Open carry was antithetical to the public peace. Lawmakers were not about to let people take the law into their own hands, so they proactively and explicitly prohibited it.

More here:
Ban the Open Carry of Firearms - New York Times

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Wednesday, August 16, 2017, 12:27 PM

The armed encampment formerly known as the idyllic college town of Charlottesville showed the world what a gun-happy nation looks like: a toxic mix of armed white supremacist alt-right Neo-Nazis and KKK members protesting the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee, counter-demonstrators, some of whom were armed, Charlottesville police, Virginia state National Guard and other so-called militias private citizens armed and outfitted in military garb who claimed to be there to keep the peace.

This confrontation revealed two epic American blunders: the idea that arming hostile groups somehow improves public safety, and the parallel notion that so-called private militias are a legitimate expression of Second Amendment rights.

To its detriment, Virginias lax gun laws allow for open civilian gun carrying and easy gun access to virtually any kind of hand-held firearm, including assault weapons. While Virginias law enforcement has been criticized for not intervening more effectively between the opposing groups, the situation was only complicated by the presence of self-styled militias, including representatives from the Pennsylvania Light Foot Militia, who claimed to be there not to take sides-although they were initially invited by the white supremacists but to help keep the peace (although theres no evidence they did anything of the kind).

According to a typical news account, these unofficial paramilitary groups . . . have long thrived across America due to the second amendments directive: 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.

Make America Gray again: Trump's betrayal of American values

America and the rest of the world need to know that this is false: the Second Amendments right to bear arms does not protect, much less encourage, private citizens to form their own armed para-military groups.

From the colonial era on, Americans organized as militias did so and sought to do so-under the recognition and control of the state or national governments. The Bill of Rights had just been ratified when Congress enacted the Uniform Militia Act of 1792, a law designed to bring greater uniformity and control to the nations militias, which at the time were central to national defense.

In a little-known Supreme Court case from 1886, Presser vs. Illinois, the court made clear why private militias are not, and cannot be, militias under law. In ruling against the right of an armed paramilitary group to march in Chicago, the court explained that Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government. . . . They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law.

To deny the government the right to restrict or outlaw such private groups would be tantamount to denying the government the right to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine (looting).

Trumps America is an alien nation

As the court said then, the only legal militia is the National Guard. That is no less true today.

Every state in the union, including Virginia, has laws against private armies, but law enforcement is often reluctant to press the matter with armed private militias for fear of provoking an armed response. And when anyone can carry guns openly, law enforcement finds itself boxed in.

Too bad that Virginia has missed the lesson of Americas actual gun law past: by the end of the 19th century, every state but four had enacted laws to restrict civilian gun carrying, especially in the cities and towns of the old West. The best way to keep trouble from escalating, they knew, was to require everyone entering town to surrender their firearms, to be retrieved only when they left.

In the upside down world of todays gun laws, at a time of record low crime, places like Virginia seem to say the opposite: bring your guns! Carry them openly!

Our countrys forebears knew that hostilities could only be made worse when antagonists were armed, and that law enforcement was best left to the professionals. And as for private militias, if they really want to serve their country, the National Guard is still taking applications.

Spitzer is distinguished service professor and chair of political science at SUNY Cortland, and the author of five books on gun policy, including Guns Across America.

See original here:
Armed private militias like Charlottesville's offend the Founding Fathers' intent: This is not what the Second ... - New York Daily News

Press release

Congressman Chris Collins response to the Union-Sun & Journal's recent editorial (Aug. 11):

My bill would restore New Yorkers Second Amendment rights and doesnt supersede states rights.

I do believe in States rights, the need for local control and the 10th Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing state rights. However, I want your readers to know my steadfast belief that states like New York should not have the ability to take away the Constitutional rights of their citizens. Under no circumstances should these basic rights be denied, and federal action is warranted in a situation where a state is infringing on the rights of any American.

The Constitution is the law of the land, and the Founding Fathers produced a document with a clear vision regarding Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment can only be interpreted one way, and that is it guarantees that Americans have the right to own a firearm.

My proposed legislation, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA), has sparked a needed conversation about the Second Amendment rights granted to Americans in the Constitution. In 2013, Gov. Andrew Cuomos Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act infringed upon the rights of law-abiding New Yorkers by instituting strict rifle and shotgun regulations. As you pointed out, these regulations were put in place purely for political purposes.

SAGA focuses specifically on protecting Second Amendment rights, and in no way is taking away the rights of states. When a state crosses the line and starts to implement regulations that are in stark contrast to the basic rights given to Americans, action needs to be taken. That is exactly why I am proposing my law to rein in the unconstitutional policies that Cuomo forced into law.

Cuomo overstepped with the SAFE Act, and my proposal to repeal much of the law has had a great deal of support. SAGA isnt hypocritical; it is a sincere effort to bring back the freedoms given to New Yorkers by our Constitution when it comes to owning a firearm. Law abiding citizens should not be punished because of onerous and unconstitutional state regulations.

It is my duty as an elected representative to make sure my constituents are protected, and that includes protecting the basic rights granted to them in the Constitution. The SAFE Act only curbed the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding New Yorkers, instead of providing them with a safer place to live as promised by the governor.

The SAFE Act has done nothing to help our communities and has only taken away our freedoms. It is time we end this disastrous law for all New Yorkers and revert back to what the Founding Fathers intended for our nation.

See related: Collins proposes new measures for protecting Second Amendment rights

Follow this link:
Collins says his bill would restore New Yorkers' Second Amendment rights - Wyoming County Free Press

White nationalists, neo-Nazis, and members of the alt-right with body armor and combat weapons on Saturday in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

When U.S. District Judge Glen E. Conrad rejected Charlottesville, Virginias attempt to relocate Saturdays white nationalist rally, he wrote that merely moving [the] demonstration to another park will not avoid a clash of ideologies between demonstrators and counter-protesters. He also acknowledged that a change in the location of the demonstration would not eliminate the need for members of the Citys law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical services personnel to appear at Emancipation Park. Instead, it would necessitate having personnel present at two locations in the City.

As it turned out, the nightmare that unfolded on Saturday in this small college town involved a great deal more than an ideological clash and demanded far more police protection than was available. Dozens of white nationalists showed up toting semi-automatic weapons, as did some counter-protesters, making it all but impossible for police to intervene when violence erupted. In short order, peaceful protesters were forced to hide as armed rioters attacked one another with clubs, smoke bombs, and pepper spray.

Complaints abound that law enforcement officers looked on from the sidelines as the brutality quickly escalated into a crisis. The tragedy culminated in the death of 32-year-old Heather Heyer when a white supremacist rammed his car into a group of peaceful protesters.

Seen in isolation, Conrads order was grounded in solid First Amendment doctrine: Charlottesville could not, he ruled, relocate the racist demonstrators based on the content of [their] speech. This is textbook law, but one is left to wonder whether it takes into account armed white supremacists invading a city with promises of confrontation. Conrads decision seems to have been issued in a vacuum, one in which Second Amendment open-carry rights either swallowed First Amendment doctrine altogether or were simply wished away, for after-the-fact analysis. The judge failed to answer the central question: When demonstrators plan to carry guns and cause fights, does the government have a compelling interest in regulating their expressive conduct more carefully than itd be able to otherwise? This is not any one judges fault. It is a failure of our First Amendment jurisprudence to reckon with our Second Amendment reality.

Charlottesville proves that this issue is hardly theoretical anymore. In his order, Conrad chose to exclude from his First Amendment analysis the very strong possibility that demonstrators would carry weapons. (The city police warned the court that hundreds of protesters would bring firearms and that militia members would be in attendance.) But, ironically, by protecting the free speech rights of the white supremacists, Conrad may have ultimately suppressed speech by ensuring an armed confrontation between the neo-Nazis and the counter-protesters would break out and that police would be powerless to stop it until blood was spilled. Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe later claimed that the militia members had better equipment than our State Policeand that their weapons prevented law enforcement from imposing order and protecting peaceful protesters. While we dont yet know the full details of what happened or how, the governors statement suggested that the presence of large quantities of lethal guns had in fact effectively silenced the many people whod assembled to peacefully express their opposition to racism.

This conflict between the right to bear arms and the right to free speech is nothing new, but the sudden surge in white nationalist activism has made it painfully obvious that, in the public square, the right to bear arms tends to trump the right to free speech. Confederate sympathizers are bringing weapons of war to their demonstrationsjust last month, in fact, Ku Klux Klansmen carried guns to a protest in an adjacent Charlottesville park. Forty-five states, including Virginia, allow some form of open carry. So long as armed demonstrators comply with their permits and do not openly threaten anyone, their protests are perfectly legal.

Rallies with guns cannot be treated, for First Amendment purposes, in the same fashion as rallies with no guns.

But of course, the presence of a gun itself dramatically heightens the odds that somebody is going to get shot. And, as Saturday proved, the presence of many guns, particularly the sort that can kill many people in very little time, may dissuade law enforcement from stepping in when a protest gets out of hand. The result is an alarming form of censorship: Nonviolent demonstrators lose their right to assemble and express their ideas because the police are too apprehensive to shield them from violence. The right to bear arms overrides the right to free speech. And when protesters dress like militia members and the police are confused about who is with whom, chaos is inevitable.

This problem is especially acute in public areas like Charlottesvilles Emancipation Park and the surrounding streets and walkways. The Supreme Court recently reminded us that parks and sidewalks occupy a special position in terms of First Amendment protection because of their historic role as sites for discussion and debate. These traditional public fora have, according to the court, immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.

So the government doesnt get to bar neo-Nazis from marching in a park just because theyre neo-Nazis. But what about neo-Nazis who are toting around assault weapons? As the world saw on Saturday, armed agitators can quickly turn a public forum into a public brawl and hijack peaceful assembly. Current First Amendment doctrine praises the open debate that is supposed to occur in our streets and parks. But it is poorly equipped to help courts apply the law when bullets may accompany the free exchange of ideas.

The seminal case protecting the rights of white nationalists to march in the streets is National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not bar neo-Nazis from marching through a Jewish neighborhood in Illinois.* Most civil libertarians (us included) believe the court got the Skokie case right. But its increasingly clear that Skokie cant always help courts figure out how to deal with a post-Heller, poststand your ground white nationalist protest. Whatever the courts were attempting to protect in the Skokie case wasnt protected in Charlottesville. The marchers in Skokie didnt promise to bring guns and armed militias to protect themselves.

Moreover, the threat posed by Nazis marching in Illinois, while symbolic and terrifying, especially in a town of Holocaust survivors, was not the threat that we are coming to your town with the power to kill you. Second Amendment enthusiasts will tell you that they dont intend to deliver any message of this sort when they parade with semi-automatic weapons. Their message is merely that guns are outstanding. But one of the lessons of Charlottesville 2017 is that sometimes, when 500 people promise to come to a protest with guns to hurt people they want to see extinguished, they plan to do just that.

Join Dahlia Lithwick and her stable of standout guests for a discussion about the high court and the countrys most important cases.

Its become amply clear that open carry in Charlottesville led to little discussion and lots of fighting. Indeed, open carry seemed to guarantee that fewer people could speak and that the police had no choice but to wait until there was actual bleeding to call off the rally. If bringing guns to a speech event pushes the line for incitement past the point where people have gone mad, its time to have another look at the intersection of speech and open carry.

Top Comment

Arrests -Brooklyn Bridge Occupy Wall Street 700+ people-Ferguson 321 (144 on 1st day)- CharlottesvilleWhite Supremacists demonstration: 4I read this online earlier today, though I did a little research and the number arrested in VA seems to be 23. More...

Rallies with guns cannot be treated, for First Amendment purposes, in the same fashion as rallies with no guns. When the police are literally too afraid of armed protesters to stop a melee, First Amendment values are diminished; discussion is supplanted by disorder and even death, and conversations about time, place, and manner seem antiquated and trite. In his analysis, Conrad treated todays white nationalists like the neo-Nazis who planned to march through Skokie.* That was a mistake. Ideas may not be able to hurt us, but assault weapons surely can. Thats why the white supremacists who marched through Charlottesville this weekend carried guns instead of Pokmon cards.Its perfectly reasonable for courts to consider the speech-suppressing potential of guns when evaluating a citys efforts to keep the peace. And it will be perfectly lethal if they fail to take the Second Amendment reality into account, as they reflect upon the values we seek to protect with the First.

*Correction, Aug. 14, 2017: This post originally misstated that Klansmen marched in Skokie, Illinois. The marchers were neo-Nazis. (Return.)

More:
The Guns Won - Slate Magazine

WSYM-TV

State faces lawsuit over guns in foster homes WSYM-TV (WXYZ) - A federal lawsuit brought on by two Michigan families and the national Second Amendment Foundation alleges the state of Michigan is violating Second Amendment rights by targeting gun owners who foster children. The dispute centers around ...

Visit link:
State faces lawsuit over guns in foster homes - WSYM-TV

Thanks to a tortured ruling by the Washington State Supreme Court, there is a dangerous new threat to gun ownership.

Its called a gun violence tax and Washingtons high court sided with the City of Seattle, which adopted such a tax in 2015 in a gun control strategy to slither around the 34-year-old state preemption law that placed exclusive authority for regulating firearms in the hands of the State Legislature.

This gun tax violates the legislative intent of statewide uniformity by taxing law-abiding gun owners inside the city, and the retailers who cater to them. In Seattles case, the tax is $25 on the sale of each firearm, plus two to five cents for each round of ammunition sold.

This threat takes on even more sinister dimensions when one considers the potential for cities to simply up the fee. Seattle started with $25 per gun, but what if they want to raise that to $100, $500 or even $1,000? It opens the door wide to making gun ownership prohibitively expensive for average citizens. Essentially, Washingtons Supreme Court just handed the gun prohibition lobby and its allies in government a new strategy: If they cant ban or regulate gun ownership out of existence, they will simply tax it into oblivion.

The ruling creates a new battleground for groups like the National Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Count on this: Municipal city and county governments controlled by anti-gun liberal politicians will be eyeballing such taxes in their own communities. They may say the revenue will be used for gun violence research or prevention programs, but in reality this is to finance gun control, and they know it. Such taxes penalize honest gun owners and use their money to conduct questionable research with the ultimate goal of using the findings of such research to support additional restrictions on their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Daniel Webster is credited with observing that The power to tax is the power to destroy. This should alarm any civil rights activist because now there may be nothing to prevent placing similar taxes on the exercise of other rights. If this case were about anything other than firearms, one could certainly wonder if the court would have come down on the citys side.

Why not put a special tax on freedom of speech or the press? How about we slap a special tax on abortions? Once the door is open to government to institute a tax on one right, there is nothing to prevent the same government from pursuing other taxes on other rights. One thing government is good at is levying taxes.

Currently, only Seattle and Cook County, Illinois which encompasses Chicago, have instituted gun violence taxes. Thousands of local governments have been carefully watching this case so that they could use the Washington ruling to launch their own financial infringements on the exercise of a civil right.

The Washington State ruling is a shot fueled by judicial activism across the bow of every American gun owner who has heretofore refrained from voting on local judges and state supreme court candidates. Elections do matter, now more than ever. When the highest court in any state gives the nod to taxing the exercise of a fundamental civil right, it plows dangerous new ground and plants legal landmines in its wake.

Alan Gottlieb is founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation. Dave Workman is senior editor of TheGunMag.com.

See the original post here:
Commentary: The dangerous new threat to gun ownership: 'Gun Violence Taxes' - Elko Daily Free Press

By David Codrea

USA -(Ammoland.com)-Skyhorse Publishing is about to release my next book, which is devoted to great and fatal government-caused disasters. The title is . Im From the Government, and Im Here to Kill You: The Human Cost of Official Negligence, attorney and author David T. Hardy informed AmmoLand Shooting Sports News Thursday. Texas City, the Tuskegee Syphilis study, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Fast and Furious, the VA hospital scandal time after time, government employees kill Americans by negligence, stupidity, or agency corruption, and time after time they escape all legal accountability.

Hardys should be a familiar name to longtime readers of this columnists work. His contributions to advancing the right to keep and bear arms have been chronicled extensively on The War On Guns blog, which has over the years featured numerous posts on his numerous books, his groundbreaking In Search of the Second Amendment documentary, his observations on the Of Arms & the Law blog, and his legal work, including cases and law review articles.

By way of complete disclosure, Mr. Hardy has represented my interests in legal actions to obtain information from the government and is part of what a U.S. Attorney who came on board during the Obama administration has pejoratively described as a tangled web of connections between a small cadre of firearms activists.

Ill offer one other stipulation, just to make sure all cards are on the table so that any recommendations I make can be viewed with the appropriate skepticism the words of everyone with an agenda (admitted or otherwise) should be: I havent read the book.

Thats because it hasnt been released yet.

The publisher informs me that the book may be released 1-2 weeks before the official Amazon release date of October 10, Hardy advises. Amazon will begin shipping as soon as they receive the books, and October 10 only reflects the publishers guarantee that Amazon will have them by that date come hell or high water. The publisher tries to beat that date by a week or two.

So why make noise about it now?

Because you can pre-order it. And because with some authors, I have confidence and faith based on past experience. So Id like to start the buzz on this immediately, to prime gun owner rights advocates to be ready for the release by learning about the book now. As such, here are some resources you are invited to check out (and to share with those you think would be interested):

Note the website includes links to pre-order form Amazon and Barnes & Noble.

Also see:

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

Go here to see the original:
Second Amendment Author and Attorney Documents Lethal Government Actions - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

In response to the Union-Sun & Journal's recent editorial, I do believe in States rights, the need for local control and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing state rights. However, I want your readers to know my steadfast belief that states like New York should not have the ability to take away the Constitutional rights of their citizens. Under no circumstances should these basic rights be denied, and federal action is warranted in a situation where a state is infringing on the rights of any American.

The Constitution is the law of the land, and the Founding Fathers produced a document with a clear vision regarding Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment can only be interpreted one way, and that is it guarantees that Americans have the right to own a firearm.

My proposed legislation, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA), has sparked a needed conversation about the Second Amendment rights granted to Americans in the Constitution. In 2013, Governor Andrew Cuomos Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act infringed upon the rights of law-abiding New Yorkers by instituting strict rifle and shotgun regulations. As you pointed out, these regulations were put in place purely for political purposes.

SAGA focuses specifically on protecting Second Amendment rights, and in no way is taking away the rights of states. When a state crosses the line and starts to implement regulations that are in stark contrast to the basic rights given to Americans, action needs to be taken. That is exactly why I am proposing my law to rein in the unconstitutional policies that Governor Cuomo forced into law.

Governor Cuomo overstepped with the SAFE Act, and my proposal to repeal much of the law has had a great deal of support. SAGA isnt hypocritical; it is a sincere effort to bring back the freedoms given to New Yorkers by our Constitution when it comes to owning a firearm. Law abiding citizens should not be punished because of onerous and unconstitutional state regulations.

It is my duty as an elected representative to make sure my constituents are protected, and that includes protecting the basic rights granted to them in the Constitution. The SAFE Act only curbed the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding New Yorkers, instead of providing them with a safer place to live as promised by the Governor.

The SAFE Act has done nothing to help our communities and has only taken away our freedoms. It is time we end this disastrous law for all New Yorkers and revert back to what the Founding Fathers intended for our nation.

U.S. Rep. Chris CollinsNY-27th Congressional DistrictClarence

Link:
Collins: My bill would restore New Yorkers' 2nd Amendment rights - Lockport Union-Sun & Journal

During the past few years, foster parents around the country have come forward to say they were told to give up their gunsor give up carrying them on their person for self-defenseas a way of complying with the foster care requirements for their particular state.

A Michigan coupleWilliam and Jill Johnsonare currently in the news for this very issue. During efforts to become the foster parents for their grandson, Johnson claimed the case worker talked to him about gun ownership, saying, If you want to care for your grandson you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights.

The Johnsons filed suit as a result, and even The New York Times has picked up the Johnsons story and reported it in a substantive manner.

Johnson claimed the case worker talked to him about gun ownership, saying, If you want to care for your grandson you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights.According to the Times, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services handbook for foster parents says firearms shall be stored in a locked metal or solid wood gun case, or trigger-locked and stored without ammunition in a locked area. Moreover, the Times reports that MDHHS requires all ammunition being locked up and handguns be registered.

Michigan is getting all the attention right now, but itis not the only state with anti-Second Amendment mandates tied to foster parenting.

For example, on Sept. 1, 2015, Breitbart News reported that Nevada residents Kristi and Rod Beber faced the possibility of losing their foster children because Rod grabbed a gun and ran out in the front yard to stop an alleged disturbance. The matter was handled without a shot being fired or an injury incurred, yet News 3reported that the Nevada Department of Family Services (DFS) pulled the Bebers foster license and told them Rods reaction to the disturbance did not sound like an adult exercising sound judgment.

Months earlier, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that another coupleBrian and Valerie Wilsonwere denied their request to foster parent because they both carried concealed handguns for self-defense.

The Nevada Legislature corrected these rules/requirements, but similar regulations are still in place in states throughout the country.

Consider Massachusetts, where guidelines for foster and adoptive homes say:

Any firearms located in the home shall be registered and licensed in accordance with state law. All firearms shall be trigger-locked or fully inoperable and stored without ammunition in a locked area. Ammunition shall be stored in a separate locked location.

Even states like Oklahomaconservative and pro-gun by any measuretoyed with requiring prospective foster parents to sign a weapons safety agreement, then abandoned the effort before it could become official policy.

Illinois is currently facing a lawsuit over its anti-Second Amendment foster parent requirements. Fox News reports:

Prospective Illinois foster parents must either certify that there are no firearms in their home or complete a form called the Foster Family Firearms Arrangement. That document requires a list of all guns and ammunition in the home and locations where they are stored. Would-be foster parents also must certify the guns have trigger locks and are stored unloaded, separate from ammunition and in locked containers accessible only with a key kept off the premises or on the owners person.

Its a nonsensical law that flies in the face of the Constitution. NRATV's Grant StinchfieldOn Jan. 17 of this year, NRATVs Grant Stinchfield addressed the anti-Second Amendment regulation on firearms in the homes of foster parents in Illinois. He observed, Its a nonsensical law that flies in the face of the Constitution. He asked, Why should you give up a constitutional right when youre engaging in the charitable act of taking care of a child in need?

To Stinchfields point, why are foster parents targeted with gun control that exceeds the controls faced by other citizens? Are the states trying to discourage foster parenting, or are they just seizing an an opportunity to secure more gun control in any way they can?

Link:
Foster Families Torn Apart By Anti-Second Amendment Regulations - America's 1st Freedom (press release) (blog)