12345...102030...


Second Amendment | Contents, Supreme Court Interpretations …

Second Amendment, amendment to the Constitution of the United States, adopted in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, that provided a constitutional check on congressional power under Article I Section 8 to organize, arm, and discipline the federal militia. The Second Amendment reads, 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. Referred to in modern times as an individuals right to carry and use arms for self-defense, the Second Amendment was envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, according to College of William and Mary law professor and future U.S. District Court judge St. George Tucker in 1803 in his great work Blackstones Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Virginia, as the true palladium of liberty. In addition to checking federal power, the Second Amendment also provided state governments with what Luther Martin (1744/481826) described as the last coup de grace that would enable the states to thwart and oppose the general government. Last, it enshrined the ancient Florentine and Roman constitutional principle of civil and military virtue by making every citizen a soldier and every soldier a citizen. (See also gun control.)

Until 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States had never seriously considered the constitutional scope of the Second Amendment. In its first hearing on the subject, in Presser v. Illinois (1886), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment prevented the states from prohibit[ing] the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security. More than four decades later, in United States v. Schwimmer (1929), the Supreme Court cited the Second Amendment as enshrining that the duty of individuals to defend our government against all enemies whenever necessity arises is a fundamental principle of the Constitution and holding that the common defense was one of the purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution. Meanwhile, in United States v. Miller (1939), in a prosecution under the National Firearms Act (1934), the Supreme Court avoided addressing the constitutional scope of the Second Amendment by merely holding that the possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length was not any part of the ordinary military equipment protected by the Second Amendment.

For more than seven decades after the United States v. Miller decision, what right to bear arms that the Second Amendment protected remained uncertain. This uncertainty was ended, however, in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), in which the Supreme Court examined the Second Amendment in exacting detail. In a narrow 54 majority, delivered by Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court held that self-defense was the central component of the amendment and that the District of Columbias prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court also affirmed previous rulings that the Second Amendment ensured the right of individuals to take part in the defending of their liberties by taking up arms in an organized militia. However, the court was clear to emphasize that an individuals right to an organized militia is not the sole institutional beneficiary of the Second Amendments guarantee.

Because the Heller ruling constrained only federal regulations against the right of armed self-defense in the home, it was unclear whether the court would hold that the Second Amendment guarantees established in Heller were equally applicable to the states. The Supreme Court answered that question in 2010, with its ruling on McDonald v. Chicago. In a plurality opinion, a 54 majority held that the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendments due process clause.

However, despite the use of person in that clause, the McDonald decision did not apply to noncitizens, because one member of the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas, refused in his concurring opinion to explicitly extend the right that far. Thomas wrote, Because this case does not involve a claim brought by a noncitizen, I express no view on the difference, if any, between my conclusion and the plurality with respect to the extent to which States may regulate firearm possession by noncitizens. Thomass conclusion was also supported by his view that the Second Amendment should be incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendments privileges or immunities clause, which recognizes only the rights of citizens.

The relatively narrow holdings in the Heller and McDonald decisions left many Second Amendment legal issues unsettled, including the constitutionality of many federal gun-control regulations, whether the right to carry or conceal a weapon in public was protected, and whether noncitizens are protected through the Fourteenth Amendments equal protection clause.

Read more from the original source:

Second Amendment | Contents, Supreme Court Interpretations ...

Second Amendment | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information …

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purposes as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision inMcDonald v. City of Chicago(08-1521). The plaintiff inMcDonaldchallenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through theincorporation doctrine.However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.

However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, andwhat level of scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment. As a general note, when analyzing statutes and ordinances, courts use three levels of scrutiny, depending on the issue at hand:

Recent lower-court case law since Heller suggests that courts are willing to uphold

More recently, the Supreme Court reinforced its Hellerruling in itsCaetano v. Massachusetts(2016) decision. The Court found that the lower "Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was wrong in the three reasons it offered for why the state could ban personal possession or use of a stun gun without violating the Second Amendment." The Supreme Court, however, remanded the case without further instructions, so this per curiam ruling did not do much to further clarify the Supreme Court's stance on the Second Amendment.

See constitutional amendment.

Go here to see the original:

Second Amendment | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information ...

Georgia EPD Statement Regarding Second Amendment to the BD Judicial Consent Order – Covington News

Late yesterday following discussions between EPD and the federal Department of Health and Human Services, the Food and Drug Administration, and theU.S.Environmental Protection Agency regarding the COVID-19 pandemicand impending critical shortages of medical devices sterilized by BD, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) and Becton Dickinson and Company (BD)fileda joint motion to amendthe judicial consent order in Newton County Superior Court.Today the Court issued an order approving the amendment.

The amendment temporarily increases the number of medical devices BDis allowed tosterilize and allows BD to make temporary changes to its aeration time. This change increases the limits on product lots sterilized per month from 600 to 825 in Covington and from 603 to 685 in Madison and modifies the minimum heated aeration period for sterilized product from 24 to 20 hours at the Covington facility. These changes are necessary to ensure hospitals have enough sterilized medical devices available to treat the influx of COVID-19 patients. The equipment sterilized at these facilities of specific concern include Foley catheter procedural trays, Foley catheters, PICC line catheters, and acute dialysis catheters.

The second amendment changes are temporary and will only be in effect until 14 days after the Governor lifts the Declaration of Public Health State of Emergency for Coronavirus.BD is presently installingnew, more effective pollution control devices at its Covington and Madison plants, whichwill reduce emissions and will be placed in operation as soon as installation is complete.

This is the second amendment to the BD consent order. The original order was filed on October 28, 2019and was amended on January 15, 2020.The other requirements of the previous orders including but not limited to air monitoring remainthe same.The second amendment to the judicial consent orderis posted on the EPD ethylene oxide webpage athttps://epd.georgia.gov/ethylene-oxide-informationunder BD.

News Media Contact: Kevin Chambers404 651-7970

email:kevin.chambers@dnr.ga.gov

Excerpt from:

Georgia EPD Statement Regarding Second Amendment to the BD Judicial Consent Order - Covington News

Florida Alert! It’s Here! A Way for You to Help Save Your Guns & Gun Rights – NRA ILA

DATE:March 25, 2020TO:USF & NRA Members and FriendsFROM:Marion P. HammerNRA Past PresidentUSF Executive Director

Members and friends keep asking me what they can do to help -- well, keep reading. If you really and truly want to help save your gun rights and Freedom in America, I'm going to tell you how.

On Saturday, March 21 and Tuesday, March 24, we sent out Legislative Alerts reporting our successes on YOUR BEHALF during the recently ended Florida Legislative Session.

We fought Senator Bill Galvano (R), President of the Florida Senate to stop SB-7028, a gun control bill that Galvano -- as Senate President -- was trying to pass for anti-gun extremist, billionaire Michael Bloomberg (D).

In the March 21 ALERTwe reminded you that Bloomberg had given $500,000 (half-a-million-dollars) to Galvano and that Galvano -- a Republican -- had said that he would make no apologies for supporting gun control championed by Bloomberg, and said that he was grateful" for Bloomberg's support. We further reminded you that we had fought SB-7028 to a standstill and that SB-7028 had died when the Legislative Session ended.

In the March 24 ALERT we listed a couple dozen of some of the worst gun control bills that we had fought to kill and, we reported that we had tracked over 100 bills that had the potential to damage your Second Amendment gun rights and hunting rights.

We worked hard and spared no expense to protect your rights.

Now, I'm asking you to dig deep and use this LINK to help us keep fighting. During this COVID-19 pandemic emergency, I'm calling on you to step up and help us help you.

Enemies of NRA, enemies of the Second Amendment, enemies of Freedom are well funded by millionaire and billionaire zealots who seem to hate all we stand for and are willing to spend untold amounts of their millions and billions to destroy NRA and the Second Amendment.

While enemies of NRA have millions of dollars, NRA has millions of members and supporters -- So, PLEASE, do your part. No amount is too large or too small. Go here to DONATE NOW.

The Second Amendment protects Freedom. Lose your gun rights and you have no way to protect Freedom. Lose the means to protect Freedom and you are no longer Free.

PLEASE, do it for WAYNE, do if for ME, do it for YOU, do it for AMERICA -- DONATE TODAY Click here:

https://donate.nra.org/donate

See more here:

Florida Alert! It's Here! A Way for You to Help Save Your Guns & Gun Rights - NRA ILA

State Representative Requests Opinion from Texas Attorney General on Exclusion of Gun Manufacturers & Retailers as "Essential…

Dear Texas NRA Member:

Today, State Representative Dustin Burrows (R-Lubbock), Chairman of the Texas House Committee on Ways & Means, formallyrequested an opinionfrom Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) on whether city and/or county officials can prohibit the sale of firearms through an emergency order or declaration by excluding firearms manufacturers and retailers as "essential businesses." On Monday, the Mayor of the City of Lubbock, which is in Burrows' district, issued an order to close all "non-essential" businesses within city limits, with no exemption for gun stores. Other cities and counties, including Waco, Austin, Bexar County, Dallas County and Travis County, have issued similar orders (a copy of Harris County's "stay at home" order was not available as this alert went out.)

These actions by local elected officials could violate the state firearms preemption law, which restricts the authority of cities and counties to enact a patchwork of regulations affecting the sale and transfer of firearms across the State of Texas.

During an emergency, food, water, shelter and adequate medical care are paramount for survival, but so too is the ability of an individual to protect his or herself, as well astheir family, home, business and property. The lines of customers outside of firearm retailers across Texas in recent days is testament to the fact that they believe the ability to exercise their constitutional rights protected by the Second Amendment is essential, as they may find themselves facing situations where they need to be their own first responders.

Your NRA-ILA will continue to monitor this situation and will report to you on further developments.

See the original post here:

State Representative Requests Opinion from Texas Attorney General on Exclusion of Gun Manufacturers & Retailers as "Essential...

Letter: Protect the rights of gun owners – Concord Monitor

Published: 3/26/2020 12:01:29 AM

In this very critical time, with all of us concerned about the spread of a potentially deadly virus among our population, the time is ripe for possible public disorder, and the rights of our citizens to provide for their own self-defense is even more important now than in more tranquil times.

Among the reasons I believe that our state has a very low violent crime rate is that so many of our citizens are gun owners. And many of our senior citizens, myself among them, take comfort from the fact that they are well-trained firearm owners.

House Bill 1660 purports to protect the elderly, but as someone notionally within that class, I assure you that I do not need, seek or want any such protection from the state. There are already many laws on the books of our state that cover exploitation, neglect and abuse, so all we simply need to do is enforce existing laws. We do not need or want HB 1660, which erodes some of our most basic constitutional rights.

HB 1660 is, once again, an attempted first step toward confiscation of firearms from our law-abiding citizens without due process and without proper regard for their rights under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 2-a of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights.

You have had the courage to veto similar legislation last session, and I urge you in the strongest possible terms to veto HB 1660 when it comes before you now.

NORM SILBER

Gilford

The rest is here:

Letter: Protect the rights of gun owners - Concord Monitor

Bidens Second Amendment Outburst Was a Warning Sign – National Review

Former Vice President Joe Biden speaks at a campaign event in Nashua, N.H., February 4, 2020.(Rick Wilking/Reuters)

Joe Biden had a little outburst today, after a construction worker asked him about the Second Amendment:

You are actively trying to end our Second Amendment right and take away our guns, the man told Biden as the candidate greeted workers building a Fiat-Chrysler assembly plant.

Youre full of sh**, Bidenresponded. A Biden aide tried to end the discussion, but the candidate silenced her in order to continue speaking with the worker. I support the Second Amendment from the very beginning. I have a shotgun. I have a 20-gauge, a 12-gauge. My sons hunt, he said.

The two men then argued about whether Biden had said he would try to take away Americans guns.

This is not okay, alright? the worker said, to which Biden responded, Dont tell me that, pal, or Im going to go out and slap you in the face.

Youre working for me, man! the worker responded.

Im not working for you, Biden shot back. Dont be such a horses ass.

If I were a Democrat, this would alarm me. Bidens behavior here is extraordinary, especially given that he is currently previewing the return to normalcy theme that he intends to run on in November. One might think that telling a voter that he is full of s*** and that you will slap them matters less than it usually would given that Donald Trump is in the White House. But, arguably, the opposite is true. Elections are about contrasts. If he is as belligerent and ill-disciplined as the incumbent, what is Bidens case for replacing him?

In this instance, the answer seems to be that, unlike Trump, Biden will usher in stricter gun control. But that, too, should alarm Democrats. If Biden now has a reputation as a champion of gun confiscation and if construction workers in Michigan are asking him about it, it suggests he does he is going to have a hard time winning back the voters that Trump peeled away from the Obama coalition. Barack Obama didnt say much about guns at all until his second term had begun, and, once he did, he presided over the loss of the Senate, the loss of the White House, and a record-breaking period of civilian firearms sales. Judging by their rhetoric, Democrats seem to believe that the center of gravity has changed on this question since then. But the evidence for this is scant. The State of Virginia is run solely by Democrats Democrats who were bankrolled by Michael Bloomberg and who promised to pass restrictive gun control as their first priority. They failed, and sparked a massive backlash in the process. Do we think the playing field looks different in Michigan?

Democrats should also be worried because, whatever the chorus of blue-check journalists who thrilled to the exchange might think, Biden was flatly wrong on the details here. Biden took offense at the idea that he was in favor of confiscation Dont tell me that, pal, he said. But what other conclusion are voters to draw from Bidens having said that he would put Beto hell yes, were coming for your AR-15 ORourke in charge of his gun policy? ORourke is now primarily famous for having taken the most extreme gun position any presidential candidate has taken in three decades, and Biden has willingly tied himself to him. Can he really be surprised that voters have put two and two together?

The rest of his answer was no better. What, I wonder, are Michiganders supposed to make of Bidens commitment to the Second Amendment when, as decades of his rhetoric suggests, he believes that it protects the private ownership of shotguns for hunting? What are they to make of his seriousness on the issue when he talks about the evils of the AR-14; when he does not know which guns are presently banned under federal law and which are not; when he does not know the difference between a machine gun and a semi-automatic carbine; when he believes you dont need 100 rounds! means . . . well, anything comprehensible at all; and when he approvingly cites the appalling (and overturned) decision in Schenck v. United States as if it makes the case for banning the most commonly owned rifle in America?

This was a bad exchange not because it is likely to change much on its own, but because it illustrates some underlying truths about the electorate and about this candidate that do not portend well.

Continued here:

Bidens Second Amendment Outburst Was a Warning Sign - National Review

Cooper’s Eye on the Left: Biden’s amped up Second Amendment response suggests he needs a little more coffee – Chattanooga Times Free Press

Biden off the graph, again

A Michigan autoworker wasn't even sure Joe Biden was planning to take questions at a recent appearance, but when he got the opportunity he asked about a concern he had his Second Amendment rights.

"I ... asked him how he wanted to get the vote of the working man when a lot of us, we wield arms," Fiat-Chrysler worker Jerry Wayne said. "We bear arms and we like to do that. And if he wants to give us work and take our guns, I don't see how he is going to get the same vote."

Biden, for some reason, couldn't give him a straight answer.

"You're full of s---," the former vice president said. "I support the Second Amendment." He later said, "I'm gonna slap you in the face."

At the same appearance, Biden referred to an AR-15 as an AR-14.

"I thought I was pretty articulate and respectful," Wayne told "Fox & Friends." "I didn't try to raise any feathers, and he kind of just went off the deep end."

Pass the Kung-Pao Chicken

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic Party's gift to Republicans, weighed in on the coronavirus last week, saying many restaurants "are feeling the pain of racism" because people are avoiding Chinese restaurants out of fear of contracting the illness.

They're not "patroning" Chinese or Asian restaurants, she said.

If she'd checked, the 30-year-old Ocasio-Cortez might have realized those not "patroning" those restaurants are probably not "patroning" Mexican, French or American restaurants, either.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee captured the continued wonder of Americans at her comments on Twitter.

"This is like an SNL ("Saturday Night Live") parody," he tweeted. "She is like literally like not aware of like literally much of like anything, like not even the fact there's like literally no word 'patroning' and she like is literally clueless as to what like racism literally means. And she is in Congress. Literally!"

A divided household

U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, D-New Jersey, and his girlfriend, singer-actress Rosario Dawson, are going their separate ways. Politically, that is.

Booker, a presidential candidate until dropping out in January, endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden recently, saying in a tweet he "won't only win, he'll show there is more that unites us than divides us."

Dawson wasn't having any of that, though.

"I got to vote for Bernie again and I did," she said on Facebook. " ... Make this election one for the history books. Turn out needs to be historic to drive home the message that we stand for something bigger and better than we have now. ... So please stay in the game, no matter what, and continue the fight our ancestors fought with fewer means and resources ... and make the path that much better, healthier and clearer for the generations to come."

Dawson did support Booker during his abbreviated run.

Couldn't be her math

It's now clear why many people called out New York Times editorial board member Mara Gay after her recent on-air math gaffe with MSNBC "11th Hour" host Brian Williams racism.

At least, that's her story.

Gay and Williams chuckled on air that with the $500 million failed Democratic candidate Michael Bloomberg spent on his campaign, he could have given every American all 327 million of them $1 million. And have some left over.

It was actually more like $1.53, but who's counting?

But Gay said those people who called the pair on the boo-boo, "a trivial math mistake," were a "racist Twitter mob." Her op-ed reply in the New York Times was titled "My People Have Been Through Worse Than a Twitter Mob."

Her people? She is black, and Williams is white. Nevertheless, she persisted.

"When you're a black woman in America with a public voice," she said, "a trivial math error can lead to a deluge of hate."

One Twitter reply to her may have said it best:

"I literally have no recollection of what you look like," it read, "and I would venture to say that if you think that being off by $999,998.48 is a trivial mistake, I can understand why you are a Democrat."

See the original post:

Cooper's Eye on the Left: Biden's amped up Second Amendment response suggests he needs a little more coffee - Chattanooga Times Free Press

Crowd seeks Crow Wing County support of 2nd Amendment – Brainerd Dispatch

Although the topics did not appear on Tuesdays agenda, the Second Amendment and gun control legislation dominated the first hour and a half of the county board meeting. Thirty-five people some more than once spoke during open forum. Most implored county commissioners to pass a resolution declaring Crow Wing Countys dedication to protecting residents Second Amendment rights, including potential legal action and the appropriation of public funds.

This isnt about guns. This is about due process. I cant rely on the federal system to protect me. I cant rely on the state system to protect me. So Im looking to my county to stand up and defend due process, said Emily resident Michael Starry. ... This is your opportunity to stand with your fellow citizens and tell us that youve got our backs the same way we have yours. Due process matters, the Constitution matters and our right to be free from tyranny, from oppression from any kind of madness that can take place that matters.

Supporters of a bill to make Crow Wing County a Second Amendment sanctuary county spoke to the Crow Wing County Board Tuesday, March 10, during the open forum segment of the meeting. Steve Kohls / Brainerd Dispatch

Starry is one of five administrators of a Facebook group called Patriots for Crow Wing 2nd Amendment Dedicated (Sanctuary) County, which sought to organize residents to attend Tuesdays meeting en force. The grassroots effort is among dozens coalescing across the state and hundreds nationwide, organized in response to gun control legislation many view as too restrictive or outright unconstitutional.

In Minnesota, the target is two bills passed by the state House of Representatives one expanding background checks to online sales and gun shows, and red flag legislation that would allow police officers to seize a persons firearms if a judge determined they were a threat to themselves or others.

Thus far, six Minnesota counties have passed sanctuary resolutions, including nearby Wadena County, indicating county leaders would fight back against these kinds of laws. Starry said he and thousands of others want Crow Wing County to join that list, and the activists got one step closer Tuesday. Midway through the parade of residents approaching the microphone, Board Chairman Paul Koering said the county board would host a public hearing at 6 p.m. March 19 in the Crow Wing County Land Services Building meeting rooms. He added he would also champion the desired resolution, putting it up for a vote at the March 24 county board meeting.

--------------------------------

What: Public hearing on proposed resolution that would make Crow Wing County a Second Amendment-dedicated county.

When: 6 p.m. March 19.

Where: Crow Wing County Land Services Building, meeting rooms 1 and 2, 322 Laurel St., Brainerd.

--------------------------------

Although a show of hands indicated a large majority of those in the room sympathized with a sanctuary resolution, at least four people who spoke said they opposed such action. Barb McColgan of Brainerd questioned the need for such a resolution and expressed concern over the county potentially dedicating public funds collected from all county residents to advance the views of one particular group.

Barb McColgan spoke Tuesday, March 10, about her concerns of just selecting one amendment of the constitution and not placing the emphasis on the whole document at the Crow Wing County Board meeting. Steve Kohls / Brainerd Dispatch

I guess my question is, this is in our Constitution, we are going to have to follow the state laws and federal laws. And so I dont see a purpose for this. It seems to me like were looking at what one special interest group wants, McColgan said. Couldnt we just as well have a resolution to support the First Amendment, freedom of speech or freedom of religion? And, you know, we can go on and on, and why dont we just resolve to support the entire Constitution, instead of breaking it apart? I feel that this resolution is divisive. Its an issue that isnt going to change anything if its passed.

Emotions ran high at times as residents explained the importance of the county boards support of the Second Amendment to them.

Brainerd High School student Boston Hackbart said the issue was a big one to him, most of his classmates and fellow service members in the Army National Guard. While sharing those thoughts, Hackbart appeared to be overcome by emotion. After several seconds of silence while Hackbart collected himself, Starry joined him at the podium.

This young man has never been politically active and something generated that in him, Starry said. ... This movement to try to protect liberty, to try to protect due process, it matters enough that he got up here trying to do this, which in my opinion is fricking amazing.

Pam Johnson, a resident of northeastern Crow Wing County, told commissioners when she was in danger from her abusive husband years earlier, a red flag law would not have protected her. She said he bought a gun not from a store, but from the street corner.

You can say somebodys mentally unstable. You can say, hey, you know, a guy beats his wife. Hes got a restraining order, he said this and that, he cant have a gun. Go down to your corner and buy one. Its that easy, Johnson said.

Several others pointed to the potentially dangerous implications or ineffectiveness of red flag legislation. Arguments included the idea people could lose their guns because of false claims by a vindictive ex-spouse, for example, or fears over how mental health problems may be defined and by whom.

Megan Pence along with her son Caleb and daughter Isabel talks to the Crow Wing County Board Tuesday, March 10, during the open forum segment of the board meeting. Several people gathered at the meeting to talk about their concerns of the recent Red Flag laws that are being proposed about firearm ownership in the state. Steve Kohls / Brainerd Dispatch

Megan Pence, accompanied by two of her five children, said shes concerned she could be a target of red flag legislation, despite her desire to protect her family.

I have three kids with disabilities. Some of those disabilities put me in very vulnerable situations, Pence said. I also have a long background of depression and anxiety. And red flag laws start to make me nervous if were going to start saying who can and cant carry a firearm, who can and cant protect their kids. Then I might be one of the first that cant carry a firearm.

But the county board has no purview over bills in the state Legislature what commissioners do have, however, is the ability to send a message on behalf of Crow Wing County residents, activists said.

Brainerd resident Darin Schadt said hes not the type to get political, but this issue moved him to get involved.

The people in the Cities are not listening to what people got to say up here. Were being left behind because the seven-county metro has all the votes, and it aint right, Schadt said. So thats why were all standing here coming to you people to send a message down to them, This aint right, were not putting up for it. And we don't want it. Its up to you guys to say no, our constituents up here do not want these things.

See original here:

Crowd seeks Crow Wing County support of 2nd Amendment - Brainerd Dispatch

State Bond Commission tangled in 2nd Amendment fight – Daily Comet

The State Bond Commission got ink around the world and praise from right-wingers by proclaiming in August 2018 Louisiana would not do business with two of the nation's largest banks because of their gun policies, which a majority on the panel considered anti-Second Amendment.

A few months later one of the two targeted banks -- Bank of America Merrill Lynch -- won a bond job from the state.

That happened again March 5 when the other targeted bank -- Citigroup Global -- bid the lowest interest rate of 2.175% to win the handling of the sale of the $264.6 million 2020 issuance of General Obligation Bond. Last year's interest rate was 3.22%. That means Louisiana taxpayers will pay tens of millions of dollars less over the life of the loan.

But the awarding of this lucrative state contract came only two weeks after the Bond Commission went out of its way Feb. 20 to again preclude Citigroup from doing business with Louisiana.

"Hypocrisy" claimed the left in emails and social media posts. "Fake news" claimed the right.

The easy answer, however, is the difference between bonds that require competitive bidding and those that can be negotiated. General obligation bonds are used to fund state construction projects, usually found in the annual capital outlay bill. Legally, that work must go to the lowest bidder.

Bank of America, which handles 18% of the state's general obligation bonds, and Citibank, which administers 5%, are two of the largest players in the bond market, which is how governments leverage taxpayer dollars to finance construction projects.

Bonds also are sold on a negotiated basis, as was the case with last year's GARVEE projects. That bond sale was used to fund another lane, each way, on Interstate 10 in Baton Rouge and a dedicated lane from the I-10 into the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport.

"In a negotiated sale, the state decides who can best represent its interests. Citibank was one of seven banks excluded from the pool," Treasurer John Schroder's office explained.

Though usually noted, it's a distinction lost when proponents focus their arguments on protecting 2nd Amendment rights by excluding banks with policies that fetter their retail and manufacturing clients from selling guns to some consumers.

Attorney General Jeff Landry wouldn't come to the phone, but issued a statement Thursday, through his press office, blaming The Advocate, with which he has been feuding because of reporting about a company he owns that imports foreigners to work on Louisiana projects. "Until they (The Advocate) can comprehend basic financial transactions and representations, the only thing I can say is that I will continue to protect the people of Louisiana's 2nd Amendment rights from liberal interests like this paper," said Landry, a member of the Bond Commission.

Treasurer Schroder, who chairs the Bond Commission, also refused to discuss the issue personally, but his press office sent definitions of competitive and negotiated sales. "By law, anybody can bid and we take the lowest bidder, no matter who the bank is," Schroder was reported in The Advocate as saying prior to the general obligation bond bids arriving on March 5.

Commissioner of Administration Jay Dardenne said in an interview last week that Schroder and Landry have taken an inconsistent position by banning banks from some state business because of political positions while including them for others.

"They gave the state the best deal," said Dardenne, also a member of the Bond Commission. "It stands to reason they would be competitive with other issuances as well. The Bond Commission's job is to get the best rate, to save taxpayers money."

He's more concerned, however, about the use of staffers to grade the proposals in a way that kept Citigroup from qualifying in February for the underwriters' pool to handle negotiated bonds. Bank of America didn't submit a proposal.

Graders for the treasurer, the attorney general and the speaker of the House -- all three of whom voted to not hire Citigroup and Bank of America because of gun policies -- gave Citigroup across the board grades of 0, 1, or 3 for categories such as "relevant experience," "track record" and "previous services to the state," according to the grading sheets. No mention of political policies was included on the grading sheets.

Those scores were added to the relatively high grades awarded by the Division of Administration, Senate president, and Department of Transportation & Development.

When averaged out, Citigroup came in ninth with a total score of 55.00. The number eight proposal was graded at 55.19 total. The majority on the Bond Commission drew the line at eight proposals, leaving Citigroup out of the pool.

"It was a blatant, a clear attempt to use staffers to achieve a political statement," Dardenne said.

Here is the original post:

State Bond Commission tangled in 2nd Amendment fight - Daily Comet

Dishonest Comparisons Between the Second Amendment and Government Funded Education – AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

From Twitter, cropped by Dean Weingarten

U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- Writing in the Atlantic, Aaron Tang, Professor of law at the University of California, creates a profoundly misleading comparison of the Second Amendment with a fabricated entitlement to an education.

Tang attempts to make the case that Second Amendment supporters and proponents of a theory the Constitution guarantees a right to an equally funded state education are rough equivalents.

There are minimal similarities in the arguments: a basic right implies a level of supporting rights. You cannot have effective Second Amendment rights without access to ammunition and a place to train. You cannot have an effective right of the press without the ability to own and operate media. You cannot have religious freedom without preventing the government from closing down churches and stopping private choices of conscience.

Tang claims the argument that the right to vote implies the entitlement to a state-funded education is equivalent to the argument by Second Amendment supporters that the enumerated right to keep and bear arms implies the right to have access to firing ranges. From the article:

So what do the gun activists argue? Its worth reproducing this argument from their brief verbatim, with emphasis added to a single word: The right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use after all, the core right to keep and bear arms for self-defense wouldnt mean much without the training and practice that make it effective. The Second Amendment may say nothing about the right to practice at a shooting range of ones choosing, in other words, but that right ought to be recognized implicitly because it is important for an express constitutional right to have full meaning.

Now consider the argument advanced by advocates of a constitutional right to basic literacy. Like gun activists and their right to firearms training, educational-equity advocates recognize that the Constitution says nothing explicit about education. But surely a guarantee of basic literacy skills must be implicit in the document in order for its express rights to have meaning. As the Gary B. complaint puts it, without access to basic literacy skills, citizens cannot engage in knowledgeable and informed voting, cannot exercise their right to engage in political speech under the First Amendment, and cannot enjoy their constitutionally protected access to the judicial system including the retention of an attorney and the receipt of notice sufficient to satisfy due process.

In order to reach this plausible-sounding bit of sophistry, Tang overlooks obvious, blatant differences.

The most obvious and fundamental difference, is no one is claiming the State must pay for Second Amendment training, the creation of ranges, or pay the costs of Second Amendment supporters who use those ranges. The Second Amendment arguments are all about stopping the state from preventing the exercise of Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment arguments are all about limiting the power of the government to interfere with Second Amendment rights.

An equivalent right to education already exists in the First Amendment, with the right to free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. The government is not allowed to prevent you from becoming educated.

On the other hand, the proponents of education equality are demanding more power for the state. They are demanding the government provide state-run schools. They are demanding the government take from some taxpayers and give money to other taxpayers, to fund what they demand.

They demand an expansion of government power and authority, exactly the opposite of Second Amendment supporters.

You cannot teach students who are unwilling to learn. Access to basic literary skills already exists. If students want to learn, there are numerous, relatively inexpensive means for them to learn. Parental attitudes are far more important than funding. Some low funded schools produce excellent results and well-educated students. Some high funded schools produce horrible results and poorly educated students. Many students are taught at home, with excellent results.

Government-funded and run ranges are not required to exercise Second Amendment rights. They may be desirable. They are likely useful. They are not required.

Government-funded and run schools are not required for people to be literate and vote. People were literate and voted long before government-funded and run schools became the norm.

The arguments both use the word implied. The arguments have almost no similarity after that.

Federal government funding of schools has far more to do with creating a government-funded propaganda arm for the Democrat party, and funds for the Democrat party via teachers unions, than it has with creating literate citizens.

Government-funded schools may be desirable. They are likely useful. They are not required. Federally funded government schools are a recent development.

Professor Tang creates the illusion of equivalency of arguments with the assumption that a right to freedom from government interference is equivalent to an entitlement to government largess.

The Second Amendment is the protection of a fundamental right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has ruled the right existed long before the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791. The right to become educated was implicitly protected by the First Amendment. Voting was almost entirely left to the states, with the franchise gradually being expanded more and more and moreover the intervening centuries.

It is an enormous stretch to compare a right implied by a foundational, fundamental, enumerated right, such as the implied right to transport firearms to a range which welcomes you, outside the jurisdiction of your domicile; to an implied entitlement of a right to vote, to have the state pay for the education which you desire, by taking money from another jurisdiction to pay for the education in your jurisdiction.

He states Second Amendment supporters admit there is no explicit mention in the Constitution of the implied right to training.

Then he states the argument of an implicit entitlement of public education is equivalent. It isn't. It does not start with an explicit right. It starts with a claim that an entitlement is required to exercise a right. Exercise of Second Amendment rights does not require an entitlement.

An equivalent for the Second Amendment would be claiming the government must provide everyone with firearms.

There has never been a right to a government-funded education in the United States Constitution. (Some state Constitutions have a right to education in the text, Arizona is one)

There has never been a Constitutional right to government-provided food.

There has never been a Constitutional right to government-provided police protection.

There has never been a Constitutional right to government-provided housing.

There has never been a Constitutional right to government-provided firearms.

There can not be a legal right to those things, because Constitutional rights limit government. They protect you from what the government would do to you.

To say there are Constitutional rights to economic products is to say the government must control the economy and make sure everyone has equal outcomes. Otherwise, the right would not be equal under the law.

A right exists, even if you do not exercise it. Everyone has Second Amendment rights, not just gun owners. Everyone already has the right to seek and obtain an education, protected by the First Amendment, even if they do not exercise that right.

This fundamental misapplication of the word right' requires a fundamental transformation of the structure of government. In essence, it requires the economy to be run by the government, with who gets how much determined by bureaucracies or the courts, instead of from a combination of effort, determination, skill, talent, luck, and, yes, government.

Some redistribution has happened, of course. Redistribution has never been a right. It is a combination of charity and forced redistribution of wealth, to use the force of government to take what would not be given.

Constitutional rights limit what government can do to you. They do not define what governments must do for you. Limiting what the government can do to you does not take resources from someone else.

To equate the arguments for implied Second Amendment rights, which limit what the government is allowed to do, with implied requirements for the government to pay for an education is fundamentally dishonest.

After setting up the argument, by ignoring the direct, obvious differences between a foundational right restricting government, and a demand for more government to take from some, and give to others, Professor Tang makes this statement:

The identical logical structure that underpins these otherwise distinctive arguments presents a puzzle for the Supreme Court. How can it in good faith accept a theory of implied constitutional rights for gun owners only to reject the same argument for schoolchildren? Yet the consensus among close followers is that this is the most likely outcome: Gun-rights activists believe the Court is primed to deliver them a victory in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, while educational-equity advocates recognize that the Courts conservative majority is unlikely to rule in their favor.

They should rule differently. The logical structure is not identical. It is fundamentally different.

The information about the difference is well known in legal circles. It is hard to believe Professor Tang does not understand the theory of natural law and the need to limit governmental power, which is foundational to the entire structure of the Constitution. The federal government is granted significant, but limited powers by the Constitution. The power to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms is not one of those powers.

He rejects that structure. He works hard to replace it with the Progressive construct of a living Constitution; a Constitution meaning only what the current justices are pressured to have it mean at any given moment. Attorney General William P. Barr recently gave a superb speech clarifying the differences in the Progressive vision of expansive government versus the founders' vision of limited government.

The Second Amendment has been infringed in various ways over the history of the United States. Those infringements do not change the foundational right. The Supreme Court has ruled the right to keep and bear arms existed long before the Constitution. The Second Amendment is in place to protect the right, not to create it.

Until 1968, citizens could order anti-tank and anti-aircraft cannons and their ammunition in the mail. Most people, in most places, had easy access to modern firearms, ammunition and ranges.

The Supreme Court is coming out of a long period, during which the words of the Constitution were often ignored, exactly because of the Progressive vision of government Professor Tang is promoting.

An important part of the theory of Progressive governance is the necessity of lying to the population, in order to achieve the objectives the governing elite wishes to enact. This is called manufacturing consent.

The United States is in the process of rejecting that theory, and in restoring a Constitutional government of limited powers.

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 retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

The rest is here:

Dishonest Comparisons Between the Second Amendment and Government Funded Education - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Political Horizons: State Bond Commission tangled in 2nd Amendment fight – The Advocate

The State Bond Commission got ink around the world and praise from right-wingers by proclaiming in August 2018 Louisiana would not do business with two of the nations largest banks because of their gun policies, which a majority on the panel considered anti-Second Amendment.

A few months later one of the two targeted banks Bank of America Merrill Lynch won a bond job from the state.

That happened again March 5 when the other targeted bank Citigroup Global bid the lowest interest rate of 2.175% to win the handling of the sale of the $264.6 million 2020 issuance of General Obligation Bond. Last years interest rate was 3.22%. That means Louisiana taxpayers will pay tens of millions of dollars less over the life of the loan.

Louisiana borrowed $350 million on Thursday to keep money flowing to state-financed construction projects.

But the awarding of this lucrative state contract came only two weeks after the Bond Commission went out of its way Feb. 20 to again preclude Citigroup from doing business with Louisiana.

Hypocrisy claimed the left in emails and social media posts. Fake news claimed the right.

The easy answer, however, is the difference between bonds that require competitive bidding and those that can be negotiated. General obligation bonds are used to fund state construction projects, usually found in the annual capital outlay bill. Legally, that work must go to the lowest bidder.

Bank of America, which handles 18% of the state's general obligation bonds, and Citibank, which administers 5%, are two of the largest players in the bond market, which is how governments leverage taxpayer dollars to finance construction projects.

Bonds also are sold on a negotiated basis, as was the case with last years GARVEE projects. That bond sale was used to fund another lane, each way, on Interstate 10 in Baton Rouge and a dedicated lane from the I-10 into the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport.

The State Bond Commission barred two of the largest banks in the world from participating in efforts to fund some highway projects in Louisian

In a negotiated sale, the state decides who can best represent its interests. Citibank was one of seven banks excluded from the pool, Treasurer John Schroders office explained.

Though usually noted, its a distinction lost when proponents focus their arguments on protecting 2nd Amendment rights by excluding banks with policies that fetter their retail and manufacturing clients from selling guns to some consumers.

Attorney General Jeff Landry wouldnt come to the phone, but issued a statement Thursday, through his press office, blaming The Advocate, with which he has been feuding because of reporting about a company he owns that imports foreigners to work on Louisiana projects. Until they (The Advocate) can comprehend basic financial transactions and representations, the only thing I can say is that I will continue to protect the people of Louisiana's 2nd Amendment rights from liberal interests like this paper, said Landry, a member of the Bond Commission.

Treasurer Schroder, who chairs the Bond Commission, also refused to discuss the issue personally, but his press office sent definitions of competitive and negotiated sales. By law, anybody can bid and we take the lowest bidder, no matter who the bank is, Schroder was reported in The Advocate as saying prior to the general obligation bond bids arriving on March 5.

Commissioner of Administration Jay Dardenne said in an interview last week that Schroder and Landry have taken an inconsistent position by banning banks from some state business because of political positions while including them for others.

They gave the state the best deal, said Dardenne, also a member of the Bond Commission. It stands to reason they would be competitive with other issuances as well. The Bond Commissions job is to get the best rate, to save taxpayers money.

Hes more concerned, however, about the use of staffers to grade the proposals in a way that kept Citigroup from qualifying in February for the underwriters pool to handle negotiated bonds. Bank of America didnt submit a proposal.

In an continuation of last years battle over the state doing business with banks that have gun control policies, the Bond Commission Thursday

Graders for the treasurer, the attorney general and the speaker of the House all three of whom voted to not hire Citigroup and Bank of America because of gun policies gave Citigroup across the board grades of 0, 1, or 3 for categories such as relevant experience, track record and previous services to the state, according to the grading sheets. No mention of political policies was included on the grading sheets.

Those scores were added to the relatively high grades awarded by the Division of Administration, Senate president, and Department of Transportation & Development.

When averaged out, Citigroup came in ninth with a total score of 55.00. The number eight proposal was graded at 55.19 total. The majority on the Bond Commission drew the line at eight proposals, leaving Citigroup out of the pool.

It was a blatant, a clear attempt to use staffers to achieve a political statement, Dardenne said.

Go here to see the original:

Political Horizons: State Bond Commission tangled in 2nd Amendment fight - The Advocate

Elected officials preparing to discuss ‘2nd Amendment Sanctuary’ – Allied News

SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP Springfield Township supervisors are looking to touch base with other elected officials on whether Mercer County should be designated a "Second Amendment Sanctuary."

It's definitely an issue that needs to be taken up with the county commissioners, Tim Stiffy, chairman of the board of supervisors, said atlast week's meeting.

Counties and towns across the country have been looking into the "Second Amendment Sanctuary," a designation they say would block enforcement of proposed gun laws that they believe would violate the U.S. Constitution, according to the Associated Press.

Dozens ofmunicipalities in Virginia have passed second amendment sanctuary resolutions.

The resolutions are promoted heavily by the gun rights group Virginia Citizens Defense League, and most of them declare the intention of local officials to oppose any "unconstitutional restrictions" on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, the AP has reported.

Supervisors need to engage in dialogue with the county commissioners, said Ray Bogaty, the township's solicitor.

And considering the fact that the township doesn't have its own police department they rely on state police, he added.

Supervisors plan to meet with the county commissioners to discuss the issue, and they're also interested to find out what other municipalities in the county think, Stiffy said.

If a gun owner is doing nothing wrong, then there is no need to take away their Second Amendment rights, he said.

Before the meeting, Stiffy said that if you're legally not allowed to have a gun because of certain charges, like domestic violence, it would stay that way with the "Second Amendment Sanctuary" designation.

Go here to read the rest:

Elected officials preparing to discuss '2nd Amendment Sanctuary' - Allied News

Taking time to think | News, Sports, Jobs – Daily Mining Gazette

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The investigation into the death of Lisa Kinnunen in December 2018 was closed in July of 2019, according to FBI ...

HOUGHTON The vote to potentially allow a recreational marijuana retailer in Houghton will wait another two ...

HOUGHTON As concerns mount over COVID-19, the City of Houghton has canceled events to slow its spread. ...

HANCOCK The day after Gov. Gretchen Whitmers declaration of a state emergency regarding the COVID-19 virus, ...

Follow this link:

Taking time to think | News, Sports, Jobs - Daily Mining Gazette

County Board meeting still scheduled in spite of coronavirus concerns – newmedia-wi.com

SHAWANO In spite of health concerns over the coronavirus that have spurred numerous closings and cancellations of events, there were no plans as of Sunday to cancel the Shawano County Boards March 25 meeting.

It is anticipated there could be a huge public turnout for that meeting, given that the board will be considering a resolution designating Shawano County a so-called Second Amendment sanctuary.

The resolution would give the sheriff the discretion not to enforce state or federal gun control laws considered to be unconstitutional.

The countys public safety committee has held two meetings on that topic, which turned out crowds of about 50 people for the first and around 30 for the second.

There have been a host of cancellations of meetings and events announced over the last several days due the COVID-19 coronavirus.

The state has ordered that schools be closed starting Wednesday, and some, including the Shawano and Bonduel school districts, have already announced closures starting Monday.

The city of Shawano has closed down City Hall and cancelled public meetings. Many area churches have cancelled Sunday services.

Shawano County is discouraging people from coming to the courthouse building unless they have essential business.

As of Sunday, however, County Board Chairman Jerry Erdmann said the March 25 County Board meeting at the county courthouse is still on.

That is up to me and I have not so far thought of cancelling it, Erdmann said.

I could possibly restrict so many people that would be coming to the courthouse or we could possibly take the names and addresses of everybody that does come, just so we know whos there so we have verification of people, he said.

Erdmann said the county would probably ask anyone who is stick to stay home.

If they definitely want to come, I may limit the number of people that will speak, he said. Thats up to me. But I may also have a health department nurse taking names of everybody that comes in, so if someone would, God forbid, get sick in Shawano County, at least we would know who would be there.

Erdmann said he felt it was important the County Board take up the Second Amendment resolution.

To me its a matter of what the Constitution of the United States says, Erdmann said. This vote is about the Second Amendment, which lies in the Constitution. We have to believe in the Constitution. Every board member basically took that oath when we were elected. So, to me, its more about the Constitution than it is any amendments.

Erdmann said he didnt feel there was any need to postpone the March 25 meeting at this time.

Now, if the situation would change where all of a sudden we are having numerous people sick in the county, I may then postpone it, he said, but right now I havent made the decision. The County Board meeting is still on for the 25th and I will deal with whatever changes happen in the near future.

Erdmann said he has been in contact with the Shawano-Menominee Counties Health Department on the issue and said he has asked department director Vicki Dantoin to update the board at the March 25 meeting regarding the coronavirus.

The rest is here:

County Board meeting still scheduled in spite of coronavirus concerns - newmedia-wi.com

Biden’s Latest Campaign Hire Shows Joey Boy Is Putting The Second Amendment in the Crosshairs – Townhall

Former Vice President Joe Biden and some in the Democratic Party might want to deny it, but the cat is out of the bag now: they want to destroy the Second Amendment. I know, this really isnt news. You, loyal readers, have known this was the Democrats long game for decades. Its the reason why some were quite irked when former Rep. Beto ORourke, his real name is Robert Francis, said: hell yes, were going to take your AR-15s and other firearms that are so-called assault weapons. Thats liberal speak for a gun that looks scary, though owned by millions. To recap, an AR-15 is a rifle owned by millions, it doesnt fire a high-caliber round, and its firing mechanism is no different than a handgun used by millions of civilians and police officers alike. Its semi-automatic, one bullet per trigger pull.

But and I know Im preaching to the choir, you already knew that toothat that liberal media doesnt care about lexicon, knowing the proper terms or the laws because thats not the point. Gun confiscation is the goal. Period. And white guy Bob blew the game and gave us oodles of political ammunition for multiple cycles. Beto endorsed Biden. Biden, in turn, said he was going to follow his lead on gun control, which is straight-up confiscation. Beto as the nations gun czar would be a parade of horrible too terrible to contemplate. And now, Biden has hired his former campaign manager to helm his 2020 bid (via NYT):

Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is planning to announce this afternoon that he has hired Jennifer OMalley Dillon as his new campaign manager, according to two Democratic officials, elevating a veteran Democratic strategist as he tries to scale up his limited organization and pivot toward President Trump and the general election.

Ms. OMalley Dillon, 43, managed former Representative Beto ORourkes presidential campaign last year and before that was a top aide on former President Barack Obamas re-election team.

Presidential campaigns always expand as they transition from the primary to the fall election, which Mr. Biden is clearly doing after building a near-insurmountable delegate lead against Senator Bernie Sanders.

But by tapping Ms. OMalley Dillon as campaign manager, Mr. Biden is also signaling to Democratic donors and elected officials that he knows he has to broaden an operation that, until his Super Tuesday success, had been underfunded.

[]

By installing Ms. OMalley Dillon now, Mr. Biden is effectively attempting to catch his organization up to his success and status as the Democratic front-runner.

Well, if OMalley was helming the were going to take your guns agenda of Beto, then it looks like Biden is pretty open to it as well. Could there be a stop to the Biden hiccups of the campaign trail? Well see. Probably not because this is Joe Biden and there are many, many aides tasked with keeping Joey Boy more or less from getting into situations where he makes a fool of himself. Granted, Beto made his pitch that only the government should own firearms on the grounds ofKent State. You know, where the government shot and killed a couple of students in 1970. And now, we have Joe Biden telling a Michigan voter that hes full of s**t and threatened to slap him after being pressed on gun rights. The voter thinks Biden wants to do that which is why he asked. Katie has more:

The Detroit union worker who former Vice President Joe Biden said was "full of sh*t" for asking about the Second Amendment during a campaign stop this week is speaking out about his experience with the Democratic presidential candidate.

During an interview with Fox and Friends Wednesday morning, Jerry Wayne explained what went down.

[]

"It was a little bit disturbing to see that a politician wants to take away my right to defend myself," Wayne said. "He doesn't need to touch anybody's weapon at all. What we need to do is we need to concentrate on teaching people how to respect firearms and how to use them, not take them away."

"This is a right we need to protect with our heart and soul and it shouldn't be infringed," he continued.

And now, with Mr. gun grabbers campaign manager now taking over Bidens operationlets say the former VP plans to be like his old boss when it comes to gun rights. He wants to strip them.

Read the rest here:

Biden's Latest Campaign Hire Shows Joey Boy Is Putting The Second Amendment in the Crosshairs - Townhall

Bloomberg Gets It Wrong on Guns and Self DefenseHere’s Eleven Examples – The National Interest

Earlier this month, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloombergwas asked how he justifiedhis push for more stringent gun control when he is guarded by an armed security detail.

Bloombergs response? He is a wealthy businessman and politician who faces threats that normal Americans do not, so its just fine for him to pay others to protect him with guns that hed put the rest of us in prison for possessing.

The reality is that Bloomberg, as a wealthy white man living in upper-class neighborhoods, is statistically far less likely to be a victim of violent crime than most other Americans.

But youd never know it from the way he spends hundreds of millions of dollars advocating gun laws that reserve armed protection for the special few.

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance.Find out more now >>

Every day, many Americans without Bloombergs wealth and power rely on the Second Amendmentnot private securityto defend themselves against threats to their lives and livelihoods. In fact, almost every major study on defensive gun use has found that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year.

Last year, The Daily Signal began a monthly series highlighting just some of the countless times that the right to keep and bear arms made all the difference for ordinary Americans whom Michael Bloomberg wants to disarm. (You can read the stories fromJanuary 2020 here.)

February similarly provided ample evidence in favor of an armed citizenry and against Bloombergs claim that only the select few can be trusted with guns.

Michael Bloomberg is more than wealthy enough to afford to pay armed men to protect him. Most Americans are not so fortunate.

We dont have former law enforcement officers on hand when the convenience store were in gets robbed. We cant rely on an armed detail to jump to our defense when were assaulted. We dont live in gated communities with 24/7 security.

We have only our Second Amendment rights. And they are worth insisting upon.

This article by Amy Swearer first appeared at The Daily Signal.

Image: Then-Democratic U.S. presidential candidateMichaelBloombergspeaks at his Super Tuesday night rally in West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., March 3, 2020. REUTERS/Marco Bello

Read more:

Bloomberg Gets It Wrong on Guns and Self DefenseHere's Eleven Examples - The National Interest

The Mysterious Meaning of the Second Amendment – The Atlantic

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

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

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

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

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

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

See the original post:

The Mysterious Meaning of the Second Amendment - The Atlantic

Why another Pa. town passed 2nd Amendment sanctuary rule even though it can’t be enforced – Lebanon Daily News

Nearly all of Kentucky's 120 counties have adopted versions of Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions. Resolutions are not legally binding. Louisville Courier Journal

By unanimous vote, Jackson Twp. supervisors declared, 'No Township Officer shall uphold any law or statute nor expend any Township funds in any effort contrary to this resolution.'

Officials in Jackson Township, Lebanon County,passed a resolution Monday declaring the municipality a "Second Amendment sanctuary," following a growing trend of local governmentstrying to pre-empt future state or federal gun control measures.

The resolution, which passed the board of supervisors unanimously, is mostly symbolic, asit doesnot supersede state orlaw.

But two supervisors said they wanted to send a message about their support of the SecondAmendment anyway.

"Really what itboils down to,is this was ... really justa policy statement saying that we recognize the Second Amendment,wesupport people'srights to bear arms andwe would never do anything to circumvent ortake away from that right," Supervisor Thomas Houtz said.

The resolution was prompted by news of a similar effort in West Manheim Township, York County, Houtz said.

The ordinance passed in West Manheim Township statesthe township will not use its money or personnel "in ways that are inconsistent with the Second Amendment to the constitution of the United States of America."

Jackson Township supervisors have declared the Lebanon County town a Second Amendment sanctuary, calling on officials there to refuse to enforce any laws that might be passed in the future that would infringe upon the rights of gun owners.(Photo: Lisa Marie Pane/AP)

The recent push forSecond Amendment sanctuaries largely began in Virginia, where dozens of municipalities passed similar resolutions in response to gun control efforts in the Virginia General Assembly.

According to The Trace, anews outlet focused on covering gun violence, over 400 municipalities have passedsanctuary ordinances and resolutions nationwide, with many containing language that local law enforcement can not enforce potential gun control measures such as a ban on assault-style weapons.

ChristianSoltysiak, the interim executive director of gun-control advocacy group CeaseFire PA, called the Second Amendment sanctuary movement a "fear-mongering tactic."

"It doesn't make our communities any safer, and that's really what we should be talking about," Soltysiak said.

Other news: Lebanon's opioid crisis: Battle to stem fatal overdoses at a standstill for another year

The resolution states: "the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental individual right that shall not be infringed.

Therefore, the Township of Jackson, County of Lebanon, Pennsylvania, shall hereby be known as a Second Amendment Sanctuary. No Township Officer shall uphold any law or statute nor expend any Township funds in any effort contrary to this resolution."

Jackson Township does not have its own police department, so this resolution will have few implications on any future gun control measures.

Bob Power, a professor emeritus of lawat Widener University School of Law, said the resolution as written does not limit the criminal justice system's ability to enforce the law.

"It's really just words," Power said. "I suspect that to a police officer or the district attorney it's a message, and the message is: 'We don't want you to come down hard on minor weapons offenses,'" Power said. "But they're not making it legally impossible."

Supervisor Thomas Morrissey said they wanted to make their opinionknown.

"We're just reaffirming our stance and support of the Second Amendment," Morrissey said.

Read or Share this story: https://www.ldnews.com/story/news/2020/03/03/lebanon-county-township-passes-2nd-amendment-sanctuary-resolution/4938459002/

Original post:

Why another Pa. town passed 2nd Amendment sanctuary rule even though it can't be enforced - Lebanon Daily News

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Race doesn’t matter to Second Amendment – Martinsville Bulletin

In her recent My Word ("Letter misrepresents people and guns, Feb. 26), Katina Vipperman in the second paragraph says that Lonnie Reynolds and Jermain Penn Jr. should not be labeled "thugs," as I had done in a prior letter. Webster's Dictionary defines thugs as, "a violent person or criminal." These young men are being charged with second degree murder that took place at drug deal gone bad. They certainly fit the definition of a "thug."

Vipperman letter asks if I am a "white supremacist or just plain racist?" Why would she even ask that? In none of my letters to the editor did I ever mention anyone's skin color. I used names, ages, locations and the fact that an AR-15 was NOT used in the alleged crime. Every Sunday I worship with the Church of Christ, where the membership is 50% black.

Vipperman is not the first person to play the race card in this Second Amendment discussion. Pamela Chisholm said in her letter ("What's in the heart does matter," Feb. 23), "Referencing the Constitution, I can safely state that they all believed in white supremacy." You know Ms. Chisholm, the Second Amendment is not for white folks only? Every law-abiding citizen who is "non-Caucasian" should have a gun in their home for self defense against criminals of any skin color.

Ms. Chisholm goes on to say that "only the police and military should have a weapon as powerful as an AR-15."... That's what the Gestapo Nazis said in the 1930s. Will we repeat history in Virginia? I hope not.

Read this article:

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Race doesn't matter to Second Amendment - Martinsville Bulletin


12345...102030...