...89101112...203040...


Piers Morgan Gets a Dose of Second Amendment Reality on Good Morning Britain – Bearing Arms

Australian immigrant Nick Adams appeared on Good Morning Britain with Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid to discuss President Trumps supposed Muslim ban.

Things took an interesting turn when Reid suggested Trumps Muslim ban is ineffective and instead suggested the president take a hardline stance on guns.

As a resident, if you want to make the U.S. safer, you dont target immigrants, you look at the biggest problem, surely threatening Americans everyday, and thats the absolutely shocking level of gun crime, Reid told Adams. And if President Trump directed his attention to towards tightening up controls on firearms that would immediately make the country a safer place.

Do you not understand that people lookat this from outside the United States and scratch their heads going, Why would you not want to have extreme vetting on lunatics or criminals getting their hands on high-power guns?’

Adams response to why the Second Amendment is important was spot on:

Author’s Bio: Beth Baumann

Excerpt from:

Piers Morgan Gets a Dose of Second Amendment Reality on Good Morning Britain – Bearing Arms

Drop Second Amendment ‘rights’ pretense – DesMoinesRegister.com

Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.

1

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

It is time to drop the pretense of defending our constitutional rights and call it what it is.

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend’s email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

John Rose, West Des Moines, Letter to the Editor 6:48 p.m. CT March 6, 2017

A federal firearms transaction record, which includes a background check, lays near a selection of guns at Ron’s Pawn and Gun in Des Moines.(Photo: Christopher Gannon/The Register, Christopher Gannon/The Register)Buy Photo

It seems as though the Republican majority in the Legislature is about to ram through a flurry of new gun laws that they falsely label Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment, like all of the others included in the Bill of Rights, is not an absolute. Like all others, is defined by interpretation of the federal courts. Therefore when some say that it enables open or concealed carry of guns with virtually no restrictions, they are simply voicing an opinion.

At this point, the Supreme Courthas ruled that the Second Amendment does indeed apply to the private ownership of guns by private citizens, but they also ruled that governments have the right to impose reasonable restrictions on that ownership. Several states have placed severe restrictions on concealed or open carry and others have all but removed all restrictions. The federal courts have declined to overturn any state law thatseverely restricts concealed or open carry. Therefore, the right to carry may be termed a legal right granted by state government, but it is not a constitutional right.

It is time for proponents of relaxing Iowas gun laws to drop the pretense of defending our constitutional rights and call it what it is. What they really want is to legislate their opinion into law, and if public opinion polls are to be believed, their opinion is at odds with the majority. Therefore, I challenge them to drop their attempts to ram these proposals through the legislature. If we really must have gun laws that are more lax, let the people decide through the referendum process.

John Rose, West Des Moines

Read or Share this story: http://dmreg.co/2myzBMX

3:46

3:28

4:00

2:18

3:15

3:05

3:38

3:12

2:41

3:38

0) { %>

0) { %>

See more here:

Drop Second Amendment ‘rights’ pretense – DesMoinesRegister.com

Weapons of war should be allowed | Letter – The Courier-Journal

Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.

1

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

The Second Amendment is not about guns, Instead, it is about the inalienable right to self defense.

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend’s email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

CJ Letter 1:56 p.m. ET March 6, 2017

Weapons(Photo: Czanner, Getty Images/iStockphoto)

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently found that the Second Amendment does not apply to weapons of war. I beg to differ. In our founders day, the musket was a weapon of war and a firearm widely used outside of war.Like most people today, our founders knew that technology would advance. Clearly, they believed that one day tyrants could rise again. This was the single most important aspect of why the founders established the Second Amendment. No modern day judge could possibly reach any other conclusion unless influenced by self-ideology. The Second Amendment not only covers AR-15s and AK-47s, but bigger more powerful semi automatics. Killers can always kill when they are facing unarmed victims, but this is not so for the armed citizen facing soldiers with semi-automatic weapons, for revolvers, shotguns and bolt action rifles are limited against such firepower. The Second Amendment is not about guns, Instead, it is about the inalienable right to self defense, a right that should never be defined by any man or woman, but protected by the oaths of statesmen, who have pledged to uphold that right.

Mark Damon Milby

Pekin, Indiana47165

Read or Share this story: http://cjky.it/2mwYPeE

3:46

3:28

4:00

1:53

2:18

6:56

7:28

3:15

3:05

3:51

3:38

3:12

2:41

3:38

2:31

3:22

3:45

1:33

1:56

3:24

3:03

3:39

3:14

3:37

3:56

3:01

2:19

4:36

2:58

1:47

0) { %>

0) { %>

Read the original:

Weapons of war should be allowed | Letter – The Courier-Journal

Students for the Second Amendment persevering after ammunition funding is revoked – University of Delaware Review

Kirk Smith/THE REVIEW After the university pulled funding for the RSOs ammunition, the Students for the Second Amendment have found alternative means of sponsorship.

BY MADIE BUIANO SENIOR REPORTER

Two months after the university revoked the organizations funding to buy ammunition, Zoe Callaway, president of Students for the Second Amendment, hasnt stopped in her pursuit to bring firearms to campus.

In the meantime, the club will host various speakers throughout the semester. Callaway has spoken to the National Rifle Association, advocates for gun rights and the Second Amendment Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to educating the public on Americas constitutional heritage to possess firearms.

Callaway hopes to bring Gays for Guns to campus, a group dedicated to teaching LGBTQ communities proper firearm use. For her last semester as president, Callaway wants to co-sponsor the event with Haven, the schools largest LGBTQ organization.

It would be a really good way to come together, especially since the country is so divided, Callaway said. To bring these two groups together would speak volumes.

Havens president, Elias Antelman, said he didnt have enough knowledge on the subject to comment.

The university provided ammunition funding to the club for approximately three years. Under the new university president, Dennis Assanis, that is no longer the case. Callaway and Jeremy Grunden, the newly appointed vice president of Students for the Second Amendment, were unexpectedly informed of the change over winter break. According to Gruden, the new policy will make the RSOs recurring trips to the shooting range harder.

They did it under our noses, just slipped it in there and didnt really tell anybody, Grunden said.

The unanticipated change will not affect the groups ability to buy ammunition for the time being. In July, Fox News wrote a story on Students for the Second Amendment titled College rifle, pistol-shooting clubs under fire, underfunded amid gun debate. Following the story, Callaway said people donated a couple thousand dollars to their club, money that they will use in substitute of university funds.

Weve also been offered discounts at different stores, Callaway said. People are willing to help us.

Despite funding restrictions, Grunden said that the group has other priorities, like continuing the fight to bring concealed carry to campus, a goal Calloway announced in October. Since then, the group has pursued support through state legislation, rather than through the school administration. The second semester president said she has spoken to senators and representatives in Delaware that have expressed interest.

We all understand its going to take a long time, longer than we like, Callaway said. We still need to find people who will help us draft a bill, and who would be willing to present it at legislative hall.

If her plan to bring concealed carry to campus is successful, Callaway already has an idea for moderating who will be allowed to carry firearms. She said that if members of the community already have their concealed carry permit, they should be permitted to have guns on their person.

Having a permit from a different state means that a screening process has already occurred. Callaway said there should be a mandatory class that people who hope to carry firearms should take as a way to stifle concerns throughout campus.

In the meantime, Students for the Second Amendment is planning a range trip following spring break. On these trips, the groups members go to a local shooting range to shoot paper targets.

According to Grunden, these excursions are of particular interest to members who are first time shooters because it provides them with an opportunity to learn about gun safety and how to properly operate a weapon.

Weve even taken foreign exchange students to the range, Callaway said. Guns are completely banned in China, so this is their only chance to ever shoot a gun.

Other than a range trip Callaway and Grunden said they will be reserving a kiosk in Trabant to advertise and educate the UD community on what their club is about. Callaway said they have been making new pamphlets that have information about gun laws in local states. They are hopeful that this will bring in new members, she said.

Read more:

Students for the Second Amendment persevering after ammunition funding is revoked – University of Delaware Review

What the Second Amendment really says about guns: Letters – Orlando Sentinel

A closer look at the Second Amendment

In response to William Ivesters letter to the editor on Monday about the Second Amendment, I ask that he look again at the amendment. It is clever to pick phrases out of context, but that is misguided. Amendment 2 in its entirety states, 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.

Clearly, the last part of the sentence refers to the first part a well-regulated militia. In todays parlance, I believe that means each states National Guard. Last time I checked, every gun owner in the United States was not a member of the National Guard.

The judiciary is expressly empowered, by the Constitution, to review, analyze and rule on the meaning of the words of our Constitution. For example, where does the Constitution say guns? It doesnt. It says arms. It is the responsibility of the judiciary to determine what is meant by arms. Bombs? Anti-aircraft missiles? This word, like many others, has to be defined in each generation.

America of the 21st century is very different from the America of our Founding Fathers. Our ability to interpret the foundational documents of our Republic in light of the realities of the world we live in is crucial to the vitality of our nation. It is time, and it is appropriate and necessary, for our country to enact legislation that seeks to protect its citizens.

Cathy Swerdlow Longwood

As a graduate student studying writing at the University of Central Florida, I read Scott Maxwells Sunday column on grammar with great interest. It may surprise him to find out, though, that I am on his side.

While the self-appointed grammar police patrol public writing, ever vigilant for imagined crimes against the English language, modern linguistics scholars acknowledge that language changes, and the language rules change with it. They know and appreciate that Ernest Hemingway splits infinitives, Jane Austen ends sentences with prepositions, and E.B. White himself uses sentence fragments and comma splices. Great writing comes from brilliant use of words, not blind obedience to dictatorial grammar rules.

And kudos to Maxwell for defending his writing with a good dictionary. What a great counterattack to grammar police brutality. Hopefully, these militant grammarians will reference their own 21st-century rule book before they literally pounce on Maxwell again.

Leslie Nixon Ormond Beach

Normally, I would excoriate the Sentinels editor for printing a letter like Bill Lanes on Sunday with its theme of “drip drip drip” as “evidence of collusion” between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

However, since the mainstream news sources coupled with the intelligence community and Democratic politicians offer the same nonproof of such, I’ll give the newspaper a pass on publishing “fake news.”

David Holley Orlando

In response to President Trump’s accusation that President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower, Sen. Marco Rubio said if we find out it’s not true, he’ll have to explain what he meant.

Trump’s history is to tell a lie and defend it aggressively, or say the media twisted his meaning, Then tell another bigger lie to divert attention from the first one. His lies are tied up in so many knots 100 sailors in 10 years couldn’t untie them.

How about reversing Rubios plan of action? Demand that Trump prove his claim is true.

There is a truism that it’s much easier to prove a positive than a negative. If hes as smart as we’ve been told, Trump could clear this up in minutes. His mendacity is mindful of the boy who cried wolf. One day the wolves will devour their creator.

James Weatherspoon St. Cloud

Original post:

What the Second Amendment really says about guns: Letters – Orlando Sentinel

Arizona Passes Bill to Lift Infringements on Second Amendment Rights – Bearing Arms

On Wednesday, the Arizona Senate passed Senate Bill 1122, which prohibits local governments from requiring background checks for private party transfers. The billis considered to be a legislative repercussion against the city of Tucson. In the past, Tucson has destroyed every gun it seized, something gun-rights activists says could violate state law.

Because of Tucsons position on guns, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich sued Tucson under a state law that allows the state to pull funding from local governments whose policies contradict those of the states. In other words, Tucson has one option: repeal the ordinance or face significant funding shortages. Losing state funding would cost the city of Tucson $170 million.

The Tucson city council refused to repeal the ordinance. While the issue plays out in court, the council has decided to pause the gun destruction program.

According to Brnovich, gun control is a state-level issue, not a local issue.

SB 1122 is being considered the legislative remedy to the Tucson problem.

From guns.com:

This is over-wrought, he said Tuesday during session. This does not allow local cities or counties to do any type of a background check for any exchange of property including cars. This is being decided before the state Supreme Court right now so lets not rush it. We should not be deicing for a city whats best for the public safety of its citizens.

The case Farley referenced pits Tucson against the state over its destruction of seized or surrendered firearms. The policy preempts state law which requires such firearms be sold, though a court decision in favor of Tucson would quash SB 1122, Farley said.

The city of Tucson is arguing that gun regulations are a matter of local control, he said. I think we should wait to see what the court decides before we make any more laws that could be invalidated.

Author’s Bio: Beth Baumann

Link:

Arizona Passes Bill to Lift Infringements on Second Amendment Rights – Bearing Arms

Campbell County hunters excited for proposed 2nd Amendment sales tax holiday – WATE 6 On Your Side

LAFOLLETTE (WATE) A proposed sales tax holiday for guns and ammunition will soon be on its way to a Tennessee Senate committee. The proposed Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday would eliminate the 9.25 percent sales tax on firearms and ammunition for the first weekend in September.

House Bill 744 was drafted by 36th District State Rep. Dennis Powers and aims to give hunters a break this season.

Weve always been a state that believes in the Second Amendment and Second Amendment rights, said Representative Powers.

Susie Carroll and her husband have ownedLa Follette Sports Shop for more than 30 years and she believes the tax free weekend will not only attract business, but help sustain a way of life for some.

Some people here, they eat everything they kill and so I think it would help them tremendously, said Carroll. It would help them to buy their ammunition and whatever they needed to hunt with.

Rep. Powers says there will be pros and cons though and not everyone may agree with it.

There will be a little bit of an expense because you are losing some revenue, said Powers.

Well some people who are not for guns are not going to like it, said Carroll. Theyre going to think it would be better to do it on some other item than a hunting item, but hunting is a big factor is this part of the country.

David Goins has been hunting since age 7 and says hes seen the rising cost of firearms and ammunition limit the number of people who hunt.

Its expensive. I mean you go out to buy a gun now to hunt with its not $150 to $200 anymore like it was when I was a kid. Its $500 to $600 plus tax, said Goins. Thats a lot of difference in their income you know, on what theyre going to have to spend.

The bill is expected to be filed this weekend. Powers also hopes the tax free weekend will attract more gun manufacturers to the state of Tennessee, which, in turn, could create more jobs.

The rest is here:

Campbell County hunters excited for proposed 2nd Amendment sales tax holiday – WATE 6 On Your Side

Trump’s Interior Secretary Makes HUGE 2nd Amendment Move On FIRST Day – Fox News

By Michael Lee, Allenbwest.com

During the campaign, Donald Trump promised he would fight for our Second Amendment rights. It didnt take long for him to follow through on that promise, signing a repeal of the Social Security gun ban just one week into his term.

Not only is President Trump committed to protecting the Second Amendment, but so are the people he places around him. Everybody knew nominating Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court was great for gun rights, but few realized just how valuable Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke would be to the cause.

Original post:

Trump’s Interior Secretary Makes HUGE 2nd Amendment Move On FIRST Day – Fox News

GUEST COLUMN: 2nd Amendment currently being misinterpreted … – Port St. Joe Star

Hugh Taylor | Special to the Daily News

Re: Column, Feb. 14, Why did the Constitution need the Second Amendment?

With guns being as much of a problem as they are, I am interested in learning more about the matter and what can be done about it. The history set forth in the recent column in your paper by Dr. Mark Hopkins is the best that I have read and provides an excellent starting point in understanding the matter.

I personally feel that the Second Amendment only permits gun ownership when a citizen is an active member of an organized (controlled and structured) militia. I think the Second Amendment is currently being misinterpreted.

My training in the USMC taught me that a gun in the hands of an untrained person is nearly worthless as a tool of self-defense and provides only a feeble and false sense of security to the untrained. The present interpretation of this amendment not only provides the public with a false sense of security, but also is causing the loss of freedom and many unnecessary deaths.

People now have to be careful about when and where they go. Laws need to be enacted that protect citizens from the use of guns and the sale of inappropriate weapons (hunting guns excluded). These laws should include search and seizure of weapons that are possessed in the public domain along with stiff fines for violation.

We need a Wyatt Earp. Where is he now? You may remember he required that people check their guns into the sheriffs office when they came to town (Wichita, Kansas) in the late-1800s and that stopped the bloodshed there.

This guest column is from Hugh Taylor, a snowbird from Overland Park, Kansas.

Editors Note

Guest editorials and columns that regularly appear in this space are not intended to reflect a particular stance of the Northwest Florida Daily News but rather share expanded viewpoints from other media outlets and our readers. To be considered for publication, guest editorials and columns from readers cannot be longer than 500 words and must be submitted by email to letters@nwfdailynews.com. Please put Guest Editorial or Guest Column in the subject line.

Read more:

GUEST COLUMN: 2nd Amendment currently being misinterpreted … – Port St. Joe Star

Rep. Sean Roberts praises passage of Second Amendment … – Guymondailyherald

State Rep. Sean Roberts praised the passage of House Bill 1803, which prohibits the expenditure of public monies to oppose rights protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The bill passed out of the House Public Safety Committee by a vote of 7-6.

The right to keep and bear arms is one of the most sacred to our citizenry, said Roberts, R-Hominy. With the state facing a deficit of over $850 million for the upcoming fiscal year, the practice of spending taxpayer dollars lobbying for gun control needs to end. Allowing the expenditure of public dollars to erode our rights protected in the constitution is an affront to our freedom.

Rep. Jeff Coody, R-Granfield, a supporter of the bill, said, I am thankful that we can move closer to the day when the constitutional rights of Oklahoma citizens will not be trampled on by unelected bureaucrats whose salaries and expenses are paid with the tax dollars of those citizens.

The bill is now eligible to be considered by the full House.

See more here:

Rep. Sean Roberts praises passage of Second Amendment … – Guymondailyherald

Leave the Second Amendment alone – Gillette News Record

I respond to the Feb. 26 editorial by Ann Turner entitled Leave the Gun Laws Alone regarding three concealed carry bills of the 2017 Wyoming Legislature.

Turner addresses HB136 Campus Carry, which recently failed in the Wyoming Senate. It would have allowed a concealed carry permit holder to carry a concealed firearm on campus.

Turner also mentions HB137 and HB194. Senate-amended HB137 failed conference/concurrence committee consideration Feb. 27, then passed reconsideration March 1. The House version allowed permittees to carry into governmental meetings. Senate amendment(s) are unknown.

On Feb. 27, HB194 passed the Senate. If enacted as presented to the Senate, the bill would empower school districts to authorize permittee employees and volunteers to carry concealed on school property. However, a Feb. 28 GNR article citing Sen.Von Flatern, reported that HB194 was amended Feb. 27 in the Senate, then passed on third reading. As of this writing, however, the roll call votes on bills and amendments page on the legislative website reflects no amendment to HB194 voted on since a failed amendment on Feb. 24. The article reports the Senate amended HB194 in conference/concurrence committee to allow anyone to carry concealed on school property except school employees and volunteers, unless said employees and /volunteers have school district consent and permits. So, at this time, appears HB194 is up for gubernatorial consideration. At this time, the exact terms of HB194 are unclear.

Turner asserts that … we strongly believe in the Second Amendment … Then, she pivots, applauding the defeat of HB136 and opposing soon-to-be-defeated HB137 and soon-to-be-gubernatorial-ready HB194 on safety grounds. Turner argues as of 2011 Wyoming already has adequately loosened its gun laws so that people can carry concealed weapons without a permit. She observes that due to such loosening, there already exists the unfettered right to carry concealed guns.

How unfettered can our right to carry concealed be if were still considering bills to expand that right? Turner closes asserting, Simply put, there are places where guns shouldnt be allowed. Doesnt sound unfettered to me!

The penultimate gun law is the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It simply, clearly says, … the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesnt say the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be reasonably regulated, just so long as the right is not substantially infringed. The peoples right established by the Second is second only to the right of free speech established by the First Amendment.

Some say even the First is infringed. They assert, You cant yell Fire! in a crowded theater. Thats correct, UNLESS ITS TRUE! If theres actually a fire, Fire! could be an important word/tool preventing or minimizing injury. Dont preemptively outlaw the use of Fire! in a theater because someone may yell it irresponsibly and untruthfully. Likewise, dont preemptively ban guns from theaters, schools or governmental meetings because someone may irresponsibly and unsafely use one. Guns could be an important tool to prevent or minimize injury. Prosecute the irresponsible, the unsafe with reckless endangerment or aggravated battery.

War with England was freshly remembered when writing the Second, so it was deemed important that the people be able to oppose an unfair, overbearing or nefarious ruler or government, foreign or domestic.

The selection of two unqualified words, not and infringed, in the Second clearly imparts the absoluteness of the peoples right. The root of infringed is fringe. A fringe is the edge or periphery of something.

Its clear the peoples right to bear arms shall not be abridged in the slightest not even bits out of the periphery, edge the fringe. Every rancher knows the law of trespass. You fence off one foot of one boundary of anothers 35,000-acre ranch and its trespassing, no matter that its merely the periphery, edge, the fringe.

My opinions not conventional wisdom. Its not that of the U.S. Supreme Court. But, the court is not always right. Its just always the court its always the last word for now. Court rulings are not cast in stone.

Bills are unqualified evidence that the right to carry concealed, let alone the right to bear arms generally, is still substantially fettered and infringed. Bills are legislative attempts to correct some of the unconstitutional infringements by Wyomings law.

In short, the Second is the only gun law thats constitutional.

C. Robert Klus Jr. is a retired attorney who lives in Gillette.

View post:

Leave the Second Amendment alone – Gillette News Record

The Second Amendment is not about guns – The Olympian

The Second Amendment is not about guns
The Olympian
Thus what the framers were talking about was not preventing persons serving in the military. In 21st century language the Second Amendment would read: A trained and disciplined armed force is necessary to the security of a free State; therefore

and more »

See the original post:

The Second Amendment is not about guns – The Olympian

GUEST COLUMN: 2nd Amendment currently being misinterpreted – The Northwest Florida Daily News

Hugh Taylor | Special to the Daily News

Re: Column, Feb. 14, Why did the Constitution need the Second Amendment?

With guns being as much of a problem as they are, I am interested in learning more about the matter and what can be done about it. The history set forth in the recent column in your paper by Dr. Mark Hopkins is the best that I have read and provides an excellent starting point in understanding the matter.

I personally feel that the Second Amendment only permits gun ownership when a citizen is an active member of an organized (controlled and structured) militia. I think the Second Amendment is currently being misinterpreted.

My training in the USMC taught me that a gun in the hands of an untrained person is nearly worthless as a tool of self-defense and provides only a feeble and false sense of security to the untrained. The present interpretation of this amendment not only provides the public with a false sense of security, but also is causing the loss of freedom and many unnecessary deaths.

People now have to be careful about when and where they go. Laws need to be enacted that protect citizens from the use of guns and the sale of inappropriate weapons (hunting guns excluded). These laws should include search and seizure of weapons that are possessed in the public domain along with stiff fines for violation.

We need a Wyatt Earp. Where is he now? You may remember he required that people check their guns into the sheriffs office when they came to town (Wichita, Kansas) in the late-1800s and that stopped the bloodshed there.

This guest column is from Hugh Taylor, a snowbird from Overland Park, Kansas.

Editors Note

Guest editorials and columns that regularly appear in this space are not intended to reflect a particular stance of the Northwest Florida Daily News but rather share expanded viewpoints from other media outlets and our readers. To be considered for publication, guest editorials and columns from readers cannot be longer than 500 words and must be submitted by email to letters@nwfdailynews.com. Please put Guest Editorial or Guest Column in the subject line.

More here:

GUEST COLUMN: 2nd Amendment currently being misinterpreted – The Northwest Florida Daily News

Florida Supreme Court Rules the Second Amendment Doesn’t Protect Open Carry – Slate Magazine (blog)

Open carry in action.

Erich Schlegel/Getty Images

On Thursday, the Florida Supreme Court upheld a state law prohibiting the open carry of firearms in public, ruling that the Second Amendment does not protect the practice. The decision is yet another legal setback in gun advocates recent struggle to persuade the courts to strike down a wide range of firearms restrictions as unconstitutional. Like many other state and federal courts throughout the country, the Florida Supreme Court concluded that the Second Amendment cannot be read to bar states from regulating the manner in which firearms are kept and used.

Mark Joseph Stern is a writer for Slate. He covers the law and LGBTQ issues.

As the court noted at the outset, virtually any adult who has no physical impairment or felony record can carry a gun in public in Florida. The weapon, however, must be concealed. After getting arrested and charged for openly carrying a .38 caliber handgun while walking alongside U.S. Highway 1, Dale Lee Norman challenged this concealment requirement, arguing that the Second Amendment protects the right to openly carry firearms. He insisted that the Supreme Courts decisions in D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, which created an individual right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense, also grant him the right to walk around in public with his firearm in plain view.

To evaluate Normans claim, the court used the analysis deployed by virtually every federal circuit court to consider Second Amendment challenges. First, it asked whether the law burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment based on a historical understanding of [its] scope, or whether it falls into a historically unprotected category of prohibitions. The court found that the law did not fall into a historically unprotected category and instead implicated the central component of the Second Amendmentthe right to self-defense.

The court then asked whether the open carry ban was so close to the core of this right as to prevent people from defending themselves. (Such laws, it asserted, are unconstitutional under Heller and McDonald.) Because Florida law regulates only how firearms are borne in public and still permits concealed carry as well as home defense, the court held that the open carry ban does not severely burden the right to self-defense.

Thus, the court found that the Florida law was not presumptively constitutional, and instead subjected it to intermediate scrutiny, asking whether it was substantially related to an important governmental objective. From there, the court easily concluded that the law passed constitutional muster. The states interest ensuring public safety by reducing firearm-related crime, the court wrote, is undoubtedly critically important. And the open carry ban substantially relates to this purpose because it helps to prevent deranged persons and criminals from grabbing an openly carried firearm and using it for malign purposes.

To my mind, this analysis is weak, as it overstates the scope of the Second Amendment from the start. The courts answer to the threshold questionwhether the open carry ban burdens historically protected Second Amendment conductis incorrect. There is no deeply rooted history of permissive open carry laws in the United States, and open carry bans should therefore be presumed to be constitutional. The dissenters, who believe open carry laws do have historical support, cite two antebellum state supreme court decisions affirming the right to openly carry in public. But as the majority noted, quoting an influential law review article, [t]he notion of a strong tradition of a right to carry outside of the home rests on a set of historical myths and a highly selective reading of the evidence. The only persuasive evidence for a strong tradition of permissive open carry is limited to the slave South.

Thats a critical caveat, because the tradition that supposedly establishes historical precedent for open carry was, in fact, part of the Southern slavery regime. White Southerners openly carried weapons to subdue, threaten, and punish rebellious or insubordinate slaves, and the law protected their right to do so as part of a legal system designed to suppress nonwhites. Obviously, this regime no longer exists; it was abolished by the 13th and 14th amendments. And in 2010s McDonald decision, the Supreme Court explained that the Reconstruction Congress wrote the 14th Amendment with the intent to apply the Second Amendment against the statesin an effort to protect newly freed slaves right to self-defense against violent white Southerners. It thus stands to reason that pre-14th Amendment case law meant to safeguard the subjugation of slaves has no place in the analysis of modern state gun regulations.

Had the Florida Supreme Court simply found, as a threshold matter, that the states open carry ban did not burden historically protected Second Amendment conduct, it couldve ended its inquiry there. Holding as much wouldve spared the majority from having to engage in a rather unconvincing intermediate scrutiny review. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit recently noted, firearm restrictions that fall outside historical protections for the right to bear arms are presumptively constitutional. Open carry has no firm tradition in our legal history, outside of two antebellum decisions designed to perpetuate the slave regime; that should be enough to justify the legality of open carry bans.

Still, in spite of these flaws, Thursdays decision is undoubtedly a major defeat for gun rights activists. It arrives just weeks after a 4th Circuit decision holding that the Second Amendment does not protect assault weapons, and less than a year after the 9th Circuit found that there is no constitutional right to concealed carry, either. (That practice, too, has been widely banned since the nations founding.) Because the Supreme Court clearly has little appetite to expand Heller and McDonald, these decisions will probably stand as the last word on the subject for now. And gun safety advocates can rest easy knowing that whatever few legislative achievements they can eke out in this political environment are unlikely to be toppled by the judiciary.

Excerpt from:

Florida Supreme Court Rules the Second Amendment Doesn’t Protect Open Carry – Slate Magazine (blog)

Second Amendment – North Country Now

Second Amendment

Thursday, March 2, 2017 – 6:56 am

I am writing this to all sportsman. We have what I believe to be a once in a lifetime opportunity in our country to protect our Second Amendment right to bear arms and to clarify our Second Amendment to own and carry a handgun legally in all states. Any citizen in possession of a license to carry firearms should be able to enjoy that right in all 50 states as they do in the state of issuance. We need every sportsman, man, woman and child to write your congressman, senators and the president to encourage them to support this bill. I would ask all hunting club presidents to encourage all members to write, all law enforcement officers to encourage all colleagues to write, all sportsman to tell your friends and relatives to write. We have a president that is on our side, along with a congress and Supreme Court. Do not let this opportunity pass us by.

Continue reading here:

Second Amendment – North Country Now

Two New Second Amendment Challenges – AmmoLand Shooting Sports News


AmmoLand Shooting Sports News
Two New Second Amendment Challenges
AmmoLand Shooting Sports News
Healey alleges that electrical weapons are arms in common use and therefore their possession by law-abiding adult citizens is protected by the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The complaint alleges that the constitutional rights of the …

See the original post here:

Two New Second Amendment Challenges – AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Ladies: Stop Posing and Start Advocating For the Second Amendment – Bearing Arms

Okay, Ineedto go off for a minute. You guys knowI dont get fired up often and it really does take a lot to fire me up, but once that fire is lit its all, Burn, baby, BURN!

Well, its burning and heres why:

LADIES: I love that so many of you are embracing your second amendment rights and not only becoming gun owners, but becoming responsibly armed! I cannot tell you how immensely proud I am to know that there are so many more women, daughters, mothers, caretakers, wives, nurses, teachers, homemakers, and female citizens who have joined the ranks of gun owners in America and are ready to defend themselves and protect their loved ones if needed.

That being said, as it iswith every trend, there area few women who have been all too happy to jump on the 2A train for their own advancement. You know who Im talking about. The ladies that post videos of themselves shooting ARs in tank tops, posing with their gun as they aretea cupping, posting pictures with their finger on the trigger you know: showing their assets while announcing their ignorance.

Well Im done.

I have had it with the social acceptance of these pistol princesses. It does nothing to advance our cause and it makes us all look like the gun-licking idiots the gun control advocateskeep saying we are.

If you really are a proficient gun owner and true advocate of our second amendment rights, dont talk about it, show people.

Stop talking about changes and makethem, stop posing with guns and shootthem, stop posting stupid selfies from the gun range and pay attentionwhen youre there, stop talking about things you know nothing about and learnabout them, stop bragging about what youre going to do for 2A and just DO IT, stop it just stop it already, you look RIDICULOUS!!!!

Okay, so in all seriousness 99.4% of women just want to help others, not advance their own popularity through firearms. We look at things like, if you know something that you think other women may not know, why not show that in aselfie? If you have a question about something, why not research the answer and put that into a post or make a Facebook Live video to encourage others to chime in to find their answers? If you take a firearms course, why not share the information and geo-tag your area so others looking for quality training can see your review? If youre volunteering with an NRA grassroots campaign, why not challenge your friends to join you in a smart social media post?

There are so many ways toshow your 2A assets without looking like an ass.Try thinking more of the greater good than focusing your camera on your goodies.

If youre half the gunny gal you claim to be, youll get twice the attention for being the real deal.

or continue beingjust another flash in the pan, thats fine, too. Those will eventually burn out and are quickly forgotten, although they do make good cautionary tales for the next generation of women.

Author’s Bio: Jenn Jacques

The rest is here:

Ladies: Stop Posing and Start Advocating For the Second Amendment – Bearing Arms

Lethal weapons of war – VICE News

A federal appeals court upheld Marylands ban on popular AR-15-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines last week, delivering a significant win to gun-control advocates who argue that the Second Amendment does not apply to military-style weapons.

Marylands ban, enacted in 2013 soon after the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, was allowed to stand in a 10-4 decision by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, that ruled the Second Amendment does not protect what the judges called exceptionally lethal weapons of war.

While the ruling is the fifth to uphold a state ban on assault weapons, according to The Trace, the Virginia federal appeals court is the highest yet to affirm a standard for classifying assault weapons, one gun advocates say will significantly narrow the scope of the Second Amendment. And one of the lawyers who brought the case now has set his sights on the Supreme Court.

It is absurd to hold that the most popular rifle in America is not a protected arm under the Second Amendment, Jennifer Baker, director of public affairs for the National Rifle Association, said in a statement. The Second Amendment protects arms that are in common use at the time for lawful purposes like self-defense.

Like all constitutional rights, the Second Amendment is limited. For instance, civilians cant buy automatic weapons, like machine guns. But now seven states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws banning military-style automatic weapons like the AR-15, a version of which was used in the Sandy Hook massacre which took the lives of 26 people, mostly children and the shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Florida, where 49 were killed and 53 wounded.

In the past, circuit courts have relied on how common a weapon is when determining if its covered by the Second Amendment, according to Hannah Shearer, an attorney with the Law Center for Gun Violence Prevention. But with the 4th Circuit ruling, the judges gave new credence to a second standard: if a weapon could cause military-level destruction.

The AR-15, the Maryland ruling majority opinion reads, is simply the semiautomatic version of the M16 rifle used by our military and around the world. That deadly ancestry, according to the opinion, means that the Supreme Court excludes AR-15-type rifles and firearms like it from the Second Amendment.

Those AR-15-style rifles are some of the most popular firearms among U.S. consumers today.

[Under the ruling,] the Second Amendment doesnt even apply to the most common and popular semiautomatic rifles being sold today, said Jay Porter, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the Maryland case. Its absurd.

But some gun control advocates say the common use standard alone is insufficient.

It would suggest that if the gun industry floods the market with an extremely dangerous destructive weapon, if they can flood the market quick enough before legislatures begin banning this product, then theres nothing a legislature can do about it because all of a [sudden] those products are in common use, said attorney Jon Lowry, director of the Brady Center to Fight Gun Violence Legal Action Project.

The common use test comes out of a 2008 Supreme Court decision, District of Columbia v Heller. If a gun is in common use for law-abiding purposes, the test goes, then its protected by the Second Amendment. But in its Heller ruling, the Supreme Court introduced a second caveat: Weapons that are most useful in military service M-16 rifles and the like may be banned.

Besides outlawing the ownership of a class of assault weapons including semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines and pistol grips the Maryland law also prohibits the sale and transfer of large-capacity magazines, which typically hold more than 10 rounds.

Gun lobby groups, however, have long argued that semiautomatic weapons are constitutionally protected.

But in the majority opinion, the federal appeals court judges reason that the difference between automatic and semiautomatic fire is only a matter of seconds between rounds. Instead, they emphasized high-capacity magazines and assault weapons ability to turn clubs and school into battlegrounds and their use in massacres from San Bernardino, California, to the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida.

While only 11 percent of mass shootings between January 2009 and July 2015 involved high-capacity magazines or assault weapons equipped with them those shootings tended to be much deadlier than those committed with other firearms, according to the gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety.

This opinion rested its reasoning on the facts of whats happening when people who shouldnt have them get ahold of weapons that were designed for military use and inflict horror and terror in public spaces, said Shearer. So in that respect, it provides an original blueprint for looking at those social problems and coming up with solutions for commonsense gun laws.

And that focus on military-level lethality, instead of commonality, is what lawyers across the aisle say might be the rulings greatest, or most misguided, legacy. Ultimately though, its anyones guess how many courts will follow the 4th Circuits lead. Or if theyll get the chance.

In the past, lawyers who represented the plaintiffs in state assault weapon cases didnt always send rulings to the Supreme Court for review, but Porter said he will. Basing an entire ruling on one half of a sentence in a Supreme Court case, he said, is not enough to restrict a constitutional right.

The real point is that no other court has done anything like this. Not even close, he said. [This is] the type of case that the Supreme Court should take, must take maybe will take.

Read the original here:

Lethal weapons of war – VICE News

2nd Amendment Groups Frustrated with Proposed DFL Firearm Legislation – Alpha News MN

St. Paul, MN Second Amendment advocacy organizations in Minnesota are responding to three firearm bills introduced by the DFL in the Minnesota State Legislature.

During a Thursday press conference DFL lawmakers unveiled three pieces of firearm legislation, fostering concern in several of Minnesotas Second Amendment supporters.

Senator Jeff Hayden (DFL Minneapolis), who lost his younger sister, Taylor, to gun violence last year while she was in Atlanta, introduced the Taylor Hayden Gun Violence Protection Act which would dedicate $200,000 in taxpayer dollars every year to be given to anti-gun groups like Everytown and Protect MN.

Hayden presented alongside law enforcement officers, anti-gun advocates, and his fellow DFL lawmakers, who introduced two additional pieces of anti-gun legislation. One bill would allow Minnesotans to obtain a court order to withhold guns from mentally unstable family members. The other bill would require background checks for Minnesotans who buy or receive guns from another private citizen. Both bills were introduced in previous legislative sessions.

We were sorry to hear of the loss that Senator Haydens family has suffered with the tragic murder of his sister last year. However, what was proposed last week is more of the same tired old gun control strategies of the past brought out from the same groups, with the same messaging, and the same falsehoods said Bryan Strawser, Chairman of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, explaining, Voters across the state rejected their message of gun control soundly in November. Gun control groups spent almost a million dollars in out-of-state funding to win seats in the Minnesota legislature, and succeeded in only two races. Instead, voters sent the strongest pro-Second Amendment majority in recent history to Saint Paul.

Strawser is correct in his assessment of Minnesotans electing a very pro-Second Amendment majority. As Alpha News previously reported, Republicans in the State Legislature introduced bills in January to address permitless-carry and stand-your-ground legislation.

The Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance wrote a Facebook post rejecting the three pieces of DFL gun legislation, stating, The new one (bill) will force the STATE, using your money, to fund anti-gun advocacy groups. These will need to be blocked.

Subscribe to Alpha News as we continue to track this legislation.

comments

The rest is here:

2nd Amendment Groups Frustrated with Proposed DFL Firearm Legislation – Alpha News MN

Chris Cox: The Second Amendment Was Under Attack During the 2016 Elections – Bearing Arms

NRA-ILA Executive Vice President Chris Cox took to the CPAC stage to introduce Vice President Mike Pence. Before Pence came on stage, Cox recapped the last year and what it meant for gun owners across the nation.

Let me ask you a question. How many of you came to CPAC last year? Thats great. Now how many of you remember what happened six days before CPAC started last year. It was February 16th and American freedom suffered a devastating loss when Justice Scalia unexpectedly passed away. That day, the stakes of the 2016 elections fundamentally changed. This was no longer a fight for the next four years. This was going to be a fight for the next 40 years.

As you all remember, the Republican primary was still, lets just say, interesting. But we knew Hillary Clinton was either going to win or steal the Democratic nomination. And we knew exactly what Hillarys Supreme Court would look like. For those of us who support the Second Amendment, we knew our gun rights would be gone. Our right to keep and bear arms survived the Supreme Court by just one vote and he had just passed away. Think about that. The court said we have the right to keep a gun in our homes to protect ourselves if God forbid some criminal breaks in and wants to murder us. Thats it. Thats all they said. But Hillarys view? She said it was a terrible decision, that the Supreme Court was wrong on the Second Amendment.

Watch Chris Coxs full remarks below:

Author’s Bio: Beth Baumann

Excerpt from:

Chris Cox: The Second Amendment Was Under Attack During the 2016 Elections – Bearing Arms


...89101112...203040...