Category Archives: Second Amendment

The Second Amendment is not limited to a simple sentence. It is of critical importance that it could have been left at that, a simple sentence making a straightforward declaration about a right of the people, but it was not.

A Colt M4 rifle and a button that reads I Vote Proud Washington Gun Owner.

OPINION In my lifetime gun control has become as explosive as any political issue in this country can be. To my mind, all we need to do to settle that issue once and for all is to read the Second Amendment and do what it says.

Here it is: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.

One possible interpretation of that wording is that the whole rationale for a militia has been eliminated. The idea of a standing army was the single thing that struck the most fear into the hearts of those who authored the Constitution. Since they would brook no standing army, having a militia would be necessary to the security of the Union. Since we now have a standing army, plus a National Guard that has been called out in more than one time of crisis, a militia really is unnecessary. Since a militia is unnecessary, the rationalein the Amendmentfor a right to keep and bear arms no longer exists.

On the other hand, there is nothing particularly wrong with having a militia. So, why not have a well-regulated militia (or a unit of the militia) in each state? If one wanted to keep and bear arms, one would have to be a member in good standing of the militia in the state of which one was a citizen.

People who want an utterly unfettered right to keep and bear arms dont like that idea. As I understand it, they offer four main arguments to support their point of view. Those are: the original language argument; the subordinate clause argument; the protection against tyranny argument; and the self-defense argument. All of those arguments are offered in support of their contention thatthe Second Amendment asserts an unfettered right to keep and bear arms.

My understanding of those arguments leans heavily onThe Second Amendment Primer, by Les Adams, though I have also participated in discussions on this topic, including face-to-face and via the internet. In the Introduction of his book Mr. Adams informs us that he is a lawyer who had studied constitutional law in law school who was gradually led to investigate the controversy surrounding the Second Amendment. I have also readThe Bill of Rights Primer,co-authored by that same Esq. Adams and Akhill Reed Amar. In both books scholarship is on impressive display.

Related |Marijuana, Gun Control, Minimum Wage Hikes Win At The Polls

In this critique of the argument concerning original language Ill focus on three terms, militia, well regulated, and security. Esq. Adams also talked about bear arms, but I wont bother with that. I suppose any term in the Amendment could be subject to debate, but Ill limit myself to three.

Mr.s Adams and Amar make the case that originally the right to keep and bear arms was a political right accruing to the people as a whole. According to them, it was widely thought at that time that the militia referred to all arms-bearing citizens, which in turn could be all adult malesthough some states would pass laws prohibiting people of (relatively recent) African heritage, even freemen, to own guns. The Constitution makes it very clear, however, that a/the militia was a specific organization (a point Ill revisit below).

As for well regulated, despite any talk of originalism, its meaning doesnt appear to have actually evolved. Esq. Adams says that then and there it meant well functioning and leaves it at that, but when it comes to organizations that is still what well regulated means. The U.S. Army, for example, has a whole book of Regulations for the sole purpose of ensuring that it will function well as an army.

There is another word in the amendment that I think bears some examination, even though it is one Mr. Adams and others, in my experience, ignore. That word is security. When I remembered the amendment, having read it some time ago, I remembered that word as defense, but the word in the amendment is definitely security.

It sounds too contemporary to be in that document. Why did they use that word instead of defense? As noted, the idea of a militia was prompted by the fear of a standing army. With no standing army, if the nation was attacked by a foreign power, an armed, well-regulated militia would be necessary for its defense. So why did they use security instead?

I submit that the answer lies in Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, where the powers of Congress are enumerated, as in Congress shall have the power to. It then lists quite a few Tos. In one of them the militia is indisputably referred to as an organization: organizing it, funding it, etc.

That the Constitution addresses the militia in its original text, before the Bill of Rights was added to it, is not something people who want an unfettered right to keep and bear arms emphasize. Altogether, in the two books authored by Mr. Adams that point of interest is mentioned oncein the one he co-authored with Mr. Amar.

One of the powers explicitly given to Congress is To provide for calling forth the militia tosuppress Insurrections. Im saying that is why security is in the Second Amendment, not defense. Security includes defending democratic government against armed insurrection by people who, unable to prevail to their satisfaction politically, would use arms to impose their point of view on everyone else.

That brings us to the protection against tyranny argument. Some people would have us believe that the people who wrote the Constitution to institute a new government put the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights to ensure that there would be people with guns available to perpetrate at their discretion in an armed insurrection against the government.

Related |The Facts That Neither Side Wants To Admit About Gun Control

That never made much sense to me. For sure, then as now, there were people who thought such protection against tyranny is a good thing, but the Constitution makes it clear that facilitating armed insurrection is not the purpose for having the militia. Tyranny has made an entrance more than once in human history through an armed insurrection.

Most fundamentally, this nation was founded on the proposition that power is the enemy of justice. No person, group, or organization is to be trusted with unfettered power.

Justice is all about containing power, keeping it on a leash, regulating it. That is why distrust of governmental power is completely validand a concern that I, a rationalist who is neither a conservative nor a liberal nor an adherent of any other ideology, share. [On my Web site,www.ajustsolution.com, I have a proposal for separating the power of printing money from government (andthe banking system)which would allow us to end all taxation and public debt, among other good things it would accomplish.]

Gun advocate Luke Crawford displays his rifle across his chest in protest at a gun control rally at the Georgia State Capitol in Atlanta. (Jaime Henry-White/AP)

Governmental power is not the only kind of power that exists, however. Having money is a form of power, too, which is one reason why many other people and I distrust Big Business. Having a gun in your hand is also a form of power. That is why many other people and I want to regulate in some way the ownership of guns.

Actually, for many who argue for an unfettered right to keep and bear arms any discussion of a/the militia is beside the point, anyway. Thats because all of that is contained, they say, in a subordinate clause. It is their contention that a subordinate clause, being subordinate, is of little or no importance compared to the main clause.

I am genuinely embarrassed for lawyers who would say such a thing and mean it. In the first place, I challenge anyone to show me any document ever written by any lawyer that didnt contain at least one subordinate clause in every sentence. Would they call those clauses meaningless verbiage? They would not.

In the English language subordinate clauses have always mattered, including the place and time of the writing of the Constitution. Those who suggest otherwise are confusing one of the words we use to describe the parts of a sentence with the more common meaning of the word subordinate.

In grammar, a clause is designated as being subordinate because it cannot stand alone as a complete sentence unto itself. It would make no sense to write, A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.

On the other hand, consider writing, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That can stand alone as a sentence and make perfectly good sense. Grammatically, that is why that part of the Second Amendment is called a main clause.

Yet, the Second Amendment is not limited to that simple sentence. It is of critical importance that it could have been left at that, a simple sentence making a straightforward declaration about a right of the people, but it was not.

The authors of the Second Amendment wanted to say something more. They wanted to relate that right to something else. That is why they added a subordinate clause that did not have to be there in order for the Second Amendment to be grammatically and logically correct. If anything, that enhances the importance of that subordinate clause. It obviously refers to the militia of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution.

That does not quite exhaust the arguments of those who want an unfettered right to keep and bear arms, however. Finally, we have the self-defense argument.

Plain and simply, that is not mentioned in the Second Amendment. Shame on the strict constructionists, much less the originalists among us who bring that topic into the discussion.

Related | Gun Control After Sandy Hook: Is There A Middle Ground?

Mr. Adams does include quite a few quotes from people who have supported a right to keep and bear arms on that ground. Many people may have voted for it on that ground. For one thing, there was no such thing as a police department in that place (or anywhere in Europe) at that time.

That does not make self-defense part of the Second Amendment as it was written. Just as the authors of that amendment could have left out the subordinate clause they included in it, they could have included a clause about self-defense, but did not.

In support of his point of view Mr. Adams does quote eight (but only eight) state constitutions that include a right to keep and bear arms. Only one of the eight includes any mention of self-defense.

In the primer on the Bill of Rights Esq. Adams co-authored, they discuss how the Fourteenth Amendment extended the applicability of the Bill of Rights to the individual states and suggest that it changed the focus of the intent of the right in question to self-defense. They argue that much of that change in focus had to do with allowing people of (relatively recent) African heritage to defend themselves against racists. What gun-hating Liberal could argue with that?

Whatever anyone else may say, and for whatever reason, I say the Fourteenth Amendment did not change the wording of the Second Amendment or explicitly introduce wording into the Constitution to change the intent of the Second Amendment. It still has all the same wordsand no morewith that pesky subordinate clause that did not have to be there still there.

So, let each state have a well-regulated militia (or a unit of the militia). While, again, Article I of the Constitution grants explicit powers to Congress regarding any militia, surely there is room in there for each state to specify what kind(s) of guns the members of the militia in that state may keep and bear, and whether a gun can be kept at homeor on ones personor not. To own a gun of any kind, however, a person would have to be a member in good standing of the militia in the state of which one was a citizen.

Stephen isa lifetime student of history, philosophy, and economics (with an M.A. in the last of those subjects) who has published essays and articles in various media, print and on-line (to include an academic journal,Contemporary Philosophy), and a book,A Just Solution.

The views expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect Mint Press News editorial policy.

Follow this link:
Gun Control: How To Solve The Second Amendment - Mintpress News (blog)

The case is unfolding in Michigan and revolves aroundWilliam and Jill Johnsons efforts to care for their grandson.

On July 18 Breitbart News reported that theSecond Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed suit against the head of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services over alleged violations of the Johnsons gun rights. William Johnson claims the case worker said, If you want to care for your grandson you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb told Breitbart News that this sacrifice of Second Amendment rights would include having no guns for self-protection at home or carried on ones person.

Now the New York Times is covering the case, which they summarize by reporting, Mr. Johnson and his wife, Jill, are suing their home state, Michigan, which bars foster parents from carrying concealed weapons. At issue is whether the states rules amount to a functional ban on owning a firearm, in violation of the Constitutions Second Amendment.

They indicate that William Johnson says he had to forfeit his carry gun under duress in order to satisfy the requirements for foster care.

UCLAs Adam Winkler spoke about the Johnsons suit, saying, This is not a case thats outlandish or off the wall. Foster parents do have constitutional rights, and they dont forsake those rights just because they become foster parents.

William Johnson is a disabled military veteran and his wife owns a fishing tackle shop. Guns have been part of their lives, both for sport and personnel protection, and hesays the area in which they live is full of bear and other predators that could easily attack him, his wife, or his grandson. Having a handgun on his person is a way to be sensibly and constitutionally prepared.

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.

See the original post here:
Shock: Gun Control Icon Defends Second Amendment Rights of Grandparents Targeted in Michigan - Breitbart News

From: Steven J. Beyers Winona

A July 30 opinion writer stated that the Second Amendment was originally meant for militia, now expanded to self defense.

In 1791, George Mason asked, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. He also wrote ... that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty ...

Patrick Henry said, The great object is, that every man be armed ... Everyone who is able may have a gun.

In the Federalist No. 28, Alexander Hamilton, wrote, If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no course left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.

The opinion writer also stated, The founders understood that majority rule had its dangers ... That is why we are not a democracy, but are, in the words of Ben Franklin, A republic, if you can keep it.

The Constitution provides an amendment process that allows for additions and adjustments. From privates to presidents, all public servants swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies. As someone who has sworn that oath twice, I find it curious that the writer, who has sworn that same oath, would describe the Constitution as deeply flawed.

Excerpt from:
Second Amendment insight - Winona Post

This week, Congressman Chris Collins (R-NY) introduced legislation that would shield popular rifles and shotguns, including the AR-15, from being banned under state laws. The bill, known as the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA), would also protect parts for these firearms, including detachable magazines and ammunition feeding devices.

The bill is a response to antigun laws in a small handful of states including California, Connecticut, D.C., Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York that criminalize the mere possession of highly popular semiautomatic long guns widely available throughout the rest of the country. Although rifles or shotguns of any sort are used less often in murders than knives, blunt objects such as clubs or hammers, or even hands, fists, and feet, gun control advocates have sought to portray the banned guns as somehow uniquely dangerous to public safety.

Please contact your U.S. Representative and ask him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 3576, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act. You can call your U.S. Representative at 202-225-3121.

TAKE ACTION TODAY

Anti-gunners focus on these so-called assault weapons was renewed after the U.S. Supreme Courts 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. That decision made clear that handguns by far the type of firearm most commonly used in crime were subject to Second Amendment protection and could not be banned. This led gun control advocates to seek out other sorts of guns to demonize, and theyve since been strenuously promoting the myth that semiautomatic rifles and shotguns with certain features such as detachable magazines, pistol grips or adjustable stocks are weapons of war with no legitimate civilian use.

Yet Americans overwhelmingly choose these types of firearms for legitimate purposes, including protection of their homes and properties, three-gun and other practical shooting sports, and hunting and pest control. And, indeed, the states legislative attempts to ban these guns has spurred a market for innovative products that use the same basic calibers and firing mechanisms, but with stock, grip, and accessory configurations that comply with legislative guidelines.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to review any of these state bans, lower courts have come up with increasingly strained readings of the Second Amendment and Supreme Court precedents to try to justify them. The Seventh Circuit, for example, held that even if a ban's incursion on Second Amendment rights had no beneficial effect on safety whatsoever, it could still be justified on the basis of the false sense of security it might impart to local residents with exaggerated fears of the banned guns. [I]f it has no other effect," the majority opinion stated, the challenged ordinance may increase the public's sense of safety. Thats hardly an acceptable offset for the infringement of a constitutional right.

Members of the Supreme Court have criticized their colleagues for failing to review these cases and the lower courts for misapplying Supreme Court precedent. As noted in a dissent filed by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by Hellers author, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, Thomas concluded, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.

With states violating Americans rights and federal courts allowing them to act with impunity, it is up to Congress to ensure that all Americans, wherever they may live, have access the best, most modern and innovative firearms for their lawful needs, including the protection of themselves and their families.

The SAGA would ensure that state regulations could not effectively prevent the manufacture, sale, importation, or possession of any rifle or shotgun lawfully available under federal law or impose any prohibitive taxes, fees, or design limitations on such firearms.

The NRA thanks Rep. Chris Collins for leading this important effort and urges his colleagues to cosponsor and support this staunchly pro-gun legislation.

Please contact your U.S. Representative and ask him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 3576, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act. You can call your U.S. Representative at 202-225-3121.

See original here:
NRA-ILA | Second Amendment Guarantee Act Would Protect ... - NRA ILA

The gun rights group is warning law-abiding armed citizens that their civil rights could be in jeopardy due to that states restrictive gun control laws.

SAF founder and executive vice president Alan Gottlieb observed:

The California Legislature has been out of control for years when it comes to placing restrictions on the Second Amendment rights of honest citizens. Right now, I wouldnt suggest to any gun owner that they even travel through the state, much less to it as their final destination.

Lawmakers in Sacramento either ignored or have forgotten that in 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment in SAFs landmark case ofMcDonald v. City of Chicago. The Second Amendments protection of the right to keep and bear arms applies to state and local governments, but they seem rather oblivious to that fact in the halls of Californias Legislature.

He added:

If you are licensed to carry in your home state, that license is not recognized in California. It doesnt matter how many background checks youve gone through or whether you took a gun safety course. Your license is no good in the Golden State, which suggests that your safety and the safety of your family are of no concern to state lawmakers or city administrators. You could be prosecuted for having a gun for personal protection, or you might get killed because you didnt.

Gottlieb is spot on. California refuses to recognize any concealed carry permit other the one they issue. This is an expression of Democratic hegemony whereby they have made concealed carry licenses extremely difficult for Californians to acquire fewer than 100,000 Californians have a license and they do not want to provide a means for additional law-abiding citizens to be armed via reciprocity.

What does this mean? It means that when a visitor from another state drives into California, he is not supposed to be armed, regardless of the number of out-of-state concealed permits he possesses or the risks associated with being defenseless. None of these things matter because the Democrats have spoken.

Gottliebs verdict: By not going to California, the life you save may be your own.

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 the original:
2nd Amendment Foundation Issues Travel Advisory: Your Gun Rights Are No Good in California - Breitbart News

By Doug Pennington By Doug Pennington August 4

Doug Pennington is a communications professional and D.C. resident.

News has been virtually exploding from our phones and televisions of late so much so that a cannon shot of a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit late last month was barely heard: Two judges on a three-judge panel struck down the Districts system of concealed-carry gun regulations as a violation of the Second Amendment.

What happens next holds critical implications for the safety of our neighborhoods, not only in the District but also in cities and states across the United States. Weak concealed-carry laws do not make Americans more secure.

The courts wrongheaded decision does not entirely come as a surprise. As I testified before the D.C. Council in 2014, One can hardly avoid the writing on the wall when it comes to ... laws that totally, or even virtually, prohibit carrying firearms outside the home.

That said, four other U.S. circuit courts have upheld the constitutionality of laws similar to the Districts, in which license applicants must provide local authorities with a good reason to carry a loaded, hidden handgun in public to justify the risks of doing so. For its part, the Supreme Court has so far shown little interest in plunging again into the thicket of gun violence prevention policy, and small wonder.

This area of law has produced general agreement among lower courts, in part because it presents a web of complex life-or-death problems that are far better suited for the peoples representatives to balance and resolve, rather than judges in the peace of [their] judicial chambers as Ronald Reagan appointee Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III eloquently wrote in 2011.

The two D.C. Circuit judges, however, shot through that restrained judicial wisdom. They stretched the limited holding of the Supreme Courts landmark decision in D.C. v. Heller to press the broader cause of firearms deregulation. How?

It is important to recall that Justice Antonin Scalias majority opinion in Heller narrowly held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms at home for self-defense. In the courts first substantive Second Amendment case in nearly 70 years, however, Scalia also added a great deal of discussion of the amendments text and history, as he saw it including his understanding of what it means to bear, or carry, arms.

The D.C. Circuits majority opinion drafted by George W. Bush appointee Judge Thomas B. Griffith took advantage of this added verbiage, circumventing Hellers narrow holding in favor of essentially rewriting it to say there is a core constitutional right to carry guns outside the home.

The D.C. Circuits decision ham-handedly sweeps aside centuries of practice and precedent for strict concealed-carry regulation reaching back to 1300s England through the ratification of the 14th Amendment. The opinion also managed to take a snide, condescending tone, in a manner sadly consonant with the Trump era and beneath the gravity of the issues at stake.

Perhaps most significant, Griffiths opinion failed to acknowledge the fundamental difference about the Second Amendment identified years ago by Dennis Henigan, former vice president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: The gun right recognized in Heller is the most dangerous right, unlike any other in the Constitution.

A wealth of empirical evidence shows, Henigan wrote, that the exercise of the right to possess guns increases the risk of harm to individuals exercising the right, to their families and to the community at large. Rather than respect this evidence and recognize that more than 125 D.C. residents have already received concealed-carry gun licenses, Griffiths opinion repeatedly compared gun rights with free speech rights. But as Americans have seen all too often from concealed-carry permit holders including the Washington Navy Yard shooter there are life-or-death matters at stake here.

This deeply problematic, and potentially dangerous, D.C. Circuit ruling should be vacated by the full D.C. Circuit, and the case should be reheard. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush wrote a masterful dissent that is practically a road map for such a reexamination. It soberly respects the text and history of the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent and the demonstrated public-safety concerns of the people of the District. As she wrote, Regulations restricting public carrying are all the more compelling in a geographically small but heavily populated urban area like the District. Quoting another case, she wrote that Washington is the seat of our national government, a city full of high-level government officials, diplomats, monuments, parades, protests and demonstrations and, perhaps most pertinent, countless government buildings where citizens are almost universally prohibited from possessing firearms.

If the full D.C. Circuit were to apply the same diligence to its analysis, it would follow Hendersons lead, reiterating a cross-ideological consensus from courts across the United States: We must uphold our Second Amendment rights while also allowing our elected officials to take reasonable steps to protect public safety.

See the original post:
D.C.'s concealed-carry regulations just suffered a shot across the ... - Washington Post

Roll Call reports that Moore was at the club on Thursday responding to a constituents question as to whether he supported the Second Amendment. Moore responded by saying, We carry, and pulling a handgun out of his wifes purse.

UNITED STATES AUGUST 3: GOP candidate for U.S. Senate Roy Moore returns his wifes hand gun to her after displaying it as a way to show support for the 2nd amendment after candidates were asked about their views on gun rights during a candidates forum in Valley, Ala., on Thursday, Aug. 3, 2017. The former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court is running tin the special election to fill the seat vacated by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)

The gun was a snub-nose revolver that appeared to be made of lightweight materials for concealed carry.

Moore then handed the gun back to his wife so she could tuck it back into her purse. He later said, I will uphold the SecondAmendment.

The 70-year-old Moore is a former Alabama Supreme Court Justice. He is vying for a Senate seat currently held by Republican Luther Strange. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) is trying to win Stranges seat as well, which makes the primary election extremely important.

All three men claim to be pro-Second Amendment and Rep. Brooks has released a number of ads focused on his pro-gun stance.

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.

See the original post here:
U.S. Senate Candidate Pulls Out Gun at GOP Meeting to Prove He Is ... - Breitbart News

A couple of Second Amendment stories to get your weekend started. The first has to do with the apparently endless debate over so-called smart guns and the efforts by #2A opponents to mandate the clunky and still basically experimental technology on the entire country. There was an event in Washington, D.C. this week where a group of gun control enthusiasts enlisted the aid of sympathetic law enforcement officers to push for the use of such technology by the nations police departments. It was organized by Washington CeaseFire and they were pushing the idea that smart guns which recognize the fingerprints of the cops who use them wouldnt be stolen and put to use by the bad guys. Meanwhile, they would work just fine when the police officers need them.

As Dan Spencer at RedState was quick to point out, this may sound nice in theory, but it simply doesnt work that way in the real world.

Smart guns can be hacked. In fact, just last week, a hacker rendered the technology in a leading German-manufactured smart gun completely useless. He could extend the firing range beyond the allowed distance, jam the gun from firing in the hands of its user or even disable the smart mechanism completely to fire it himself

For the IP1, the smart gun offers its owner nothing more than the appearance of security. Yet, the German manufacturers marketing claimed that the gun would usher in a new era of gun safety.

If theres one thing that law enforcement needs in the field, its reliability. Unfortunately, smart gun technology doesnt offer that. Until it does, we cannot even consider it, regardless of the stats or stunts that activists push.

The hacking question is certainly a valid one (and it remains a growing concern in all aspects of IT far beyond firearms) but its hardly the only issue. Plenty of experts have reviewed most of these guns before and found other, more fundamental problems. The time it takes for the weapon to initialize so that it recognizes the owner can be far too long. And a delay in being able to deploy your firearm in a critical law enforcement situation can add up to some dead cops pretty quickly. Also, some models have inherent flaws which allow the safety features to be disabled by someone with very little in the way of expertise. In short, this technology remains far from being ready for prime time. Its bad enough that some legislators want to mandate it for private use, but forcing this on law enforcement is simply a disaster waiting to happen.

Not all of the #2A news is bad, however. The National Rifle Associations Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) reports that New York Congressman Chris Collins has introduced new legislation which would standardize gun control laws across the country for popular rifles and shotguns, including specific parts for such firearms. Named the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA), the bill will be of particular interest to owners of so-called assault rifles such as the AR-15.

The bill is a response to antigun laws in a small handful of states including California, Connecticut, D.C., Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York that criminalize the mere possession of highly popular semiautomatic long guns widely available throughout the rest of the country. Although rifles or shotguns of any sort are used less often in murders than knives, blunt objects such as clubs or hammers, or even hands, fists, and feet, gun control advocates have sought to portray the banned guns as somehow uniquely dangerous to public safety

The SAGA would ensure that state regulations could not effectively prevent the manufacture, sale, importation, or possession of any rifle or shotgun lawfully available under federal law or impose any prohibitive taxes, fees, or design limitations on such firearms.

The NRA thanks Rep. Chris Collins for leading this important effort and urges his colleagues to cosponsor and support this staunchly pro-gun legislation.

Its a fine idea in theory, but given the Supreme Courts stubborn reluctance to say much of anything about the inherent nature of Second Amendment rights since Heller, its tough to predict how they might react. The entire states rights issue inevitably gets dragged into the question, despite the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is supposed to universal. The court has similarly been vague at best when it comes to questions of modifications to firearms such as larger capacity magazines, suppressors and adjustable stocks.

Still, Ill join with the NRA in thanking Congressman Collins and his co-sponsors for at least making the effort. The Senate Democrats will probably doom it to failure before it gets off the ground, but if nothing else it might bring the argument back to the forefront for voters as we approach the midterms.

The rest is here:
Smart guns and SAGA. The Second Amendment fight drags on - Hot Air

Ive noticed something about being in the gun industry. Everyone has a story, and more often than not they are more than willing to share it with you. Well I would like you to meet Antonia Okafor and her story. Antonia is a black woman who is often criticized and belittled because of her beliefs. Mainly because she is a major advocate for the Second Amendment. She is the founder of emPOWERed, which is an organization aimed at bringing campus carry to colleges around the country. As a woman who went to college and also as a woman who has had her own experiences where I realized how important self-defense was, I could totally get behind this.

Recently Antonia wrote an article for the illustrious New York Times about why she carries a gun to school. Me being the common sense, gun loving, Second Amendment advocate that I am LOVED it. Even more so that it was attached to something that was near and dear to my heart, New York.

I thought this was awesome, living in New York City, its not often you see a pro 2A article in any newspaper from here. After reading the article I did something I normally do after reading an article, I read the comments.

What I saw in those comments honestly disturbed me on so many different levels. The comments that I read were from mostly men telling her that she shouldnt be able to keep her guns, telling her shes not strong enough and that she would be overpowered anyway and shot with her own firearm so dont even try.

Praying they werent in the same parking lot as her in fear she would accidentally shoot them because of her emotional instability. Men who were envisioning her attack and telling her to be more realistic about her protection choices. Well guess what, THIS IS REALISTIC. This is the reality for so many women.

I consider myself an old age feminist, where I believe I can do anything a man can do. Which includes taking her own self-defense into her own hands. I think what bothered me most about those comments were theyre written by the very people who claim to praise women and respect their choices. But because a WOMAN wants to exercise her Constitutional right that they dont agree with, now shes suddenly weak, uneducated, nave, and even mentally ill.

The women fighting for our Second Amendment right have a much larger fight than we all may realize. Were fighting to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States and were also fighting for our rights as women. Its a disgrace that an educated, respected woman is accused of being a pawn for the NRA and being told to depend on college escort programs, which essentially means relinquishing your ability to defend yourself to some college campus peace officer, which is also probably a male. No thanks. Ill continue exercising my rights how I see fit, which includes the first AND second Amendments.

Antonia, like so many other women in the gun industry are often criticized, ridiculed and belittled often by people who scream womens rights. If theres one thing I have to say to ANYONE who claims they are a feminist or a womans right activist is this; If you want the government to stay out of my body, then dont tell me how to defend my body.

http://www.antoniaokafor.com/empowered

This article is courtesy of The Loadout Room.

We thought this story would be interesting for you, for full access to premium original stories written by our all veteran journalists subscribe here.

If you liked this article, tell someone about it

Here is the original post:
What happens when a Texas 2nd Amendment woman meets New York City? - SOFREP (press release) (subscription)

By Hans A. von Spakovsky, FOX NEWS

Washington, D.C. residents, you dont have to holster your Second Amendment rights anymore. Unfortunately, residents of many other states like California dont have the same ability that D.C. residents now do to protect themselves.

In a stirring victory for those who live in the nationals capital, a panel of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals recently threw out a D.C. ordinance that denied concealed-carry permits to anyone who could not show a special need for self-defense, what is referred to as a good reason requirement. The problem is that other courts of appeal have upheld such restrictive laws and the U.S. Supreme Court has turned down appeals of those decisions, refusing to take up the issue of the Second Amendments application to carrying a weapon outside of the home.

This happened most recently at the very end of the Supreme Courts 2017 term in June when it refused to take up Peruta v. California, an appeal of a decision of the Ninth Circuit upholding Californias good reason requirement.

Go here to read the rest:
The Second Amendment Has Won (Again) In Washington. So Why ... - Fox News