Category Archives: Second Amendment

A federal appeals court on Tuesday blocked the District from enforcing strict limits the city has in place on carrying concealed firearms on the streets of the nations capital.

In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said the Districts system that requires a good reason to obtain a permit is so restrictive that it is essentially an outright ban in violation of the Second Amendment.

The good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on most D.C. residents right to carry a gun in the face of ordinary self-defense needs, wrote Judge Thomas B. Griffith, who was joined by Judge Stephen F. Williams.

Bans on the ability of most citizens to exercise an enumerated right would have to flunk any judicial test.

The courts rejection of the Districts gun-control measure is the latest legal blow for city officials who have been forced to rewrite regulations ever since the Supreme Court in 2008 used a D.C. case to declare a Second Amendment right to gun ownership.

In her dissent on Tuesday, Judge Karen L. Henderson said the Districts regulation passes muster because of the citys unique security challenges as the nations capital and because it does not affect the right to keep a firearm at home.

The ruling from a three-judge panel gives city officials 30 days to decide whether to appeal for review by a full complement of D.C. Circuit judges. If the court does not agree to revisit the case sitting as an en banc panel, the order would take effect seven days later.

[Appeals court questions D.C.s restrictions on concealed carry of firearms]

Residents who want a permit to carry a concealed firearm in D.C. must now show that they have good reason to fear injury or a proper reason, such as transporting valuables. The Districts concealed-carry rules are similar to those in New Jersey, New York, Maryland and in some jurisdictions in California.

The Supreme Court has turned down several opportunities, including in June, to decide whether such regulations are constitutional.

At oral arguments in September, the D.C. Circuit was reviewing two challenges to the citys law that resulted in conflicting opinions and was asked to decide whether the citys permitting restrictions could remain in place while the broader challenge to the law is litigated.

District officials told the court the restrictions are necessary in a city that struggles with gun violence and faces heightened security challenges because of the number of federal government buildings and public officials.

Gun rights groups and Republican attorneys general from more than a dozen states told the court that the Districts system is unconstitutional because the typical law-abiding citizen could not obtain a permit.

View original post here:
Appeals court blocks enforcement of District's strict concealed-carry law - Washington Post

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the Bill of Rights.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

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.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Excerpt from:
Second Amendment rights - The Constitution

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, relating to the right of people to bear arms, was enacted as part of the Bill of Rights, its ratification occurring on 15 December 1791 with the support of the Virginia Legislature.

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:

The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:

Both versions are commonly used by "official" U.S. government publications.

George Mason is considered the "Father of the Bill of Rights." Mason wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which detailed specific rights of citizens. He was later a leader of those who pressed for the addition of explicitly stated individual rights as part of the U.S. Constitution.

Read the original post:
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikiquote

Fairfax, Va. A group of Maryland citizens, with the support of the National Rifle Association, filed a petition to the United States Supreme Court on Friday seeking to reverse aCourt of Appealsrulingthat stripped some of Americas most popular rifles of Second Amendment protection.The 4thCircuit ruling in the case Kolbe v. Hogan is a direct contradiction of the Supreme Courts 2008 decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, which re-affirmed American citizens right to self-defense.

Lower courts have been making up their own rules when it comes to the Second Amendment for too long, andtheKolbe decisioncrossed yet another line, said Chris W. Cox, executive director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. The popular rifles and standard magazines banned in Maryland are some of the best tools for self-defense. We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will reverse this egregious decision.

InFebruary, the4thCircuit Court of Appeals ruled the Second Amendment does not protect the most popular rifles in the country including AR-15s as well as all standard capacity detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

The petition asks the Supreme Court to confirm that its ruling inDistrict of Columbia v. Hellerprotects the most popular semiautomatic rifles and magazines.

By holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to common firearms and magazines, the4thCircuit has gone further than any other courtinattackingSecond Amendment freedoms.

Marylands ban on commonly owned rifles and magazines is unconstitutional.The National Rifle Association will continue to fight for all Americans Second Amendment rights.

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. More than five million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services. Be sure to follow the NRA on Facebook at NRA on Facebook and Twitter @NRA.

Original post:
NRA-ILA | Supreme Court Asked to Review Maryland's Gun Ban - NRA ILA

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Liberals may simply try to wish away the crime but a 17-year-old girls brush with death, and subsequent use of a gun, shows without a doubt that the Second Amendment saves.

The story of Kimber Woods, who fired into the ground and scared away a home intruder, is one for the political books. Strangely, liberals are pretty silent on it, though.

Woods was alerted by her boyfriend of a possible burglar, called her dad to ask if she could use a gun, and when told yes, slid one under her pillow. When the burglar did indeed enter her home, Woods pulled out the firearm and pointing it right at his face, demanding he leave. For extra emphasis, she ran outside and fired a shot into the ground.

The burglar fled. Mission accomplished.

Nobody was even physically harmed.

This is how the Second Amendment works.

I know how to use the gun and it gave me a peace of mind that I had the upper hand and I was going to be safe, Woodstold Breitbart in an interview.

So why isnt Woods being lauded throughout the mainstream media as a hero? Why isnt she being mentioned by, say, left-leaning politicos on CNN as a solid example of why the Second Amendment is needed in modern times?

Because Woods doesnt fit the narrative of the gun-controlling left.

Woods experience demonstrates aptly why more guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans, not fewer, bring safety to citizens, particularly for women. Guns are equalizers. Theyre what give a 17-year-old girl the ability to stand down a threatening, perhaps brutal, home intruder, no matter his size, no matter his strength.

Firearms training among Americas youth as Woods underwent, from about the age of 6 or 7, she said is actually a proper lesson plan for parents to follow. The left will cover its ears and eyes at such a notion. But Woods story shows clearly: The constitutional right to carry is indeed a lifesaver for the innocent.

Follow this link:
Girl with gun makes clear 2nd Amendment saves - Washington Times

By Dean Weingarten

Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- In August, 2016, two professors from the University of Austin, Texas, and an Associate Teaching Assistant Professor, sued the Attorney General of Texas, Ken Paxton, the President of the University of Texas, Austin, and the Members of the Board of Regents of the University of Texas at Austin.

A number of frivolous claims were offered in an attempt to stop the Texas statute allowing exercise of the Second Amendment on Campus from going into effect.

The claims included that the law is vague, the law violated the plaintiffs' First Amendment, Second Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The arguments were childish, irrational, emotional rants.

Here is an example:

48. The Texas statutes and university policies that prohibit Plaintiffs from exercising their individual option to forbid handguns in their classrooms violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied in Texas through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. These policies and procedures deprive Plaintiffs of their Second Amendment right to defend themselves and others in their classrooms from handgun violence by compelling them as public employees to passively acquiesce in the presence of loaded weaponry in their place of public employment without the individual possession and use of such weaponry in public being well-regulated. This infringement lacks any important justification and is imposed without any substantial link between the objectives of the policies and the means chosen to achieve them.

Judge Lee Yeakel heard the claims, read the suit, and concluded that the plaintiffs had no standing because they had not suffered any harm.

From reporternews.com:

A federal judge has dismissed a long-shot lawsuit filed by three University of Texas at Austin professors seeking to overturn the state's 2015 campus carry law, which allows people to carry concealed handguns inside most public university buildings.

District Judge Lee Yeakel wrote in his decision that the professors Jennifer Lynn Glass, Lisa Moore and Mia Carter couldn't present any concrete evidence to substantiate their fears that campus carry would have a chilling effect on free speech.

From the decision, at texasattorneygeneral.gov(pdf):

The court concludes that Plaintiffs have not established an injury-in-fact, nor that the alleged injury is traceable to any conduct of Defendants. Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 180-81. Accordingly, the court will dismiss this cause for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Crane v. Johnson, 783 F.3d 244,251 (5th Cir. 2015). (Because [appellants] have not alleged a sufficient injury in fact to satisfy the requirements of constitutional standing, we dismiss their claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.)

III. CONCLUSION

IT IS ORDERED that UT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (Clerk's Doc. No. 64) and Defendant Ken Paxton's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint (Clerk's Doe. No. 65) are GRANTED

The results of the lawsuit are were expected. The claims were frivolous to those who actually read them.

It took nearly a year for the court to reach that conclusion. Some Minnesota students attempted to duplicate the Texas protests. No serious incidents have been associated with the restoration of Second Amendment freedoms on Campus. Other than the Minnesota copy cat protests, protests related to Texas Campus Carry have withered away. 2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Link to Gun Watch

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

View post:
Anti-Second Amendment Academics Shot Down in Texas Case - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Australians have long been wary of Americas Second Amendment. Last weeks fatal shooting of an innocent Australian woman in Minnesota has only stoked their fears.

Justine Damond, 40, had called the police to report a local crime in Minneapolis. In the midst of some confusion, the officers she had called ended up accidentally shooting her to death.

In the aftermath of the tragedy, Australian media is fuming over Americas relaxed gun laws. Australia has some of the strictest gun laws in the world - why can't America learn from them, they wonder.

A Daily Telegraph headline read, AMERICAN NIGHTMARE.

This country is infested with possibly more guns than people, Philip Alpers, a gun policy analyst from the University of Sydney, told the Associated Press.

Its not just the media that want answers. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull alsowants the U.S. to address the shocking shooting.

"How can a woman out in the street in her pyjamas seeking assistance from the police be shot like that?" he asked.

"It is a shocking killing, it is inexplicable.

"Yes, we are demanding answers on behalf of her family and our hearts go out to her family and all of her friends and loved ones."

More details emerged Wednesday into what transpired in the moments before the shooting. An officer reportedly heard a loud noise on the scene, leading to the deadly confusion.

Near the end of the alley, a loud sound startled Harrity. A moment later, Justine Damond, the woman who had called 911, approached the drivers side of the squad car. Suddenly a surprise burst of gunfire blasted past Harrity as Noor fired through the squads open window, striking Damond in the abdomen.

The two officers began lifesaving efforts, but within 20 minutes Damond was dead.

No, Trump Isn't Primarily to Blame for the GOP's Healthcare Struggles

View original post here:
Australians Sound Off on Second Amendment After Fatal Shooting - Townhall

NORTHWEST ARKANSAS - Your right to bear arms in Arkansas could be taken away if you apply for a medical marijuana card. According to the Arkansas Department of Health, you can't have both a medical marijuana card and legally own a gun because pot is still illegal on the federal level.

Robert Reed, a Navy Veteran who served his country for 16 year, suffers PTSD along medical conditions which medical marijuana would help.

Reed said, "I will not apply for a med license, and risk my livelihood and my safety."

The Arkansas Department of Health said a question they get all the time is whether or not you can own a gun and possess a medical marijuana ID card. Since prescription pot is a Schedule 1 controlled substance, under federal law, you can't own a gun legally. And federal law supersedes state law.

"If they're a user of marijuana, although legal in Arkansas, it's still illegal on the federal level," explained Robert Brech with Arkansas Department of Health. "It's very clear you cannot be a marijuana user, and pass that check."

Reed, and other veterans who fought for Constitutional rights, will not apply for their medical marijuana cards due to putting the freedom they fought for at risk.

"You've got a law that outlaws the people that defended your right to make a law that puts me in jail," said Reed.

"You won't be denied the medical marijuana card. There's actually a provision in the Constitutional amendment that you can't be denied a license. So they may continue to give a conceal carry license to someone. It's really a problem at the federal level, not the state level," explained Brech.

"How can I have health and freedom by giving up a right? I can't," said Reed.

More:
Medical Marijuana means Losing Your Second Amendment Rights - KNWA

Editor:

Too often when liberals, in general, read the Constitution they pick and choose the wording they want to follow. Armed Teachers a Bad Idea (published in the July 11 edition of the Uinta County Herald) is a perfect example of this. To make my point, in italics is the whole Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Of course, liberals with their typical big-government beliefs will only see the words well regulated and it stops there.

The first question I have to ask is who are the militia? By definition they are a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army.

So, we, the people, are the militia, and in order to keep a free state around the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Does it say what kind of weapons I can and cant own? No, it doesnt. A group of men known as the founders had just spent years fighting a tyrannical government with the same weapons the government had.

So, the second the government makes any law restricting people from owning the type of weaponry they can afford and desire, they are in violation of the Second Amendment.

For all of the Christians out there, Luke 22:36 says, Then said he unto them, but now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Its plain and simple that you should own and familiarize yourself with weapons.

And now onto the part that really just confused me more than anything. What about the childs psyche? Most of us have been around or involved with firearms since we were children. Some of us parked off school property so we could leave our rifles in our trucks and go hunting after school.

Guns dont commit crimes and criminals dont care about laws.

I read the comments on the website and I have to applaud most of you for actually giving it traffic. However, there are a few things I would like to clarify.

I took an oath 10 years ago. I was disqualified from serving due to my medical record but I still took an oath; to some people that means something. Secondly, I agree that teachers need sufficient training breach and clear techniques need to be taught.

Finally, I am not a gun nut, I just understand the Constitution as what it is, a legal document.

Patrick Ballinger

Evanston

View original post here:
Letter: Understanding the Second Amendment - Uinta County Herald

The would-be foster parents, William and Jill Johnson, were trying to secure custody of their grandson when William was reportedly told he had to hand over the serial numbers for every gun in the home to complete the process.William claims the caseworker 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 includes having no guns for self-protection at home or carried on ones person. And in a press release sent to Breitbart News, SAF pointed out that aGogebic County Court judge allegedly told Williams he had to comply with caseworkers gun control request if he wanted the foster acquisition to succeed.

According to the SAF press release,

The policy of the MDHHS, by implementing requirements and restrictions that are actually functional bans on the bearing of firearms for self-defense, both in and out of the home, completely prohibits foster and adoptive parents, and those who would be foster or adoptive parents, from the possession and bearing of readily-available firearms for the purpose of self-defense. This violates Plaintiffs constitutional rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

The release quoted Gottlieb saying, The statements from the caseworker and judge are simply outrageous. This amounts to coercion, with a child as their bartering chip. I cannot recall ever hearing anything so offensive and egregious, and weve handled cases like this in the past. Blatantly telling someone they must give up their civil rights in order to care for their own grandchild is simply beyond the pale.

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.

More:
2nd Amendment Foundation Files Suit: Alleges Foster Parents Forced to Give Up Gun Rights for Child - Breitbart News