...89101112...203040...


Bill McClung: Enforce Second Amendment as it is written – GazetteNET

Enforce Second Amendment as it is written

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows: 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.

Please note, in order to have the right to keep and bear arms and not have it be infringed, a person must (1) be part of a well-regulated militia, that is (2) helping to secure and keep free the state.

If we enforced the Second Amendment as it is written, we might be well on our way to solving the daily slaughter that occurs in our country.

Bill McClung

Pelham

Originally posted here:

Bill McClung: Enforce Second Amendment as it is written – GazetteNET

Second Amendment: An American tragedy | Local | azdailysun.com – Arizona Daily Sun

A year ago, Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives staged a sit-in demanding a vote on federal gun-safety bills following the shootings at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. The National Rifle Associations lobbying was largely blamed for no vote happening. But looking deeper, the Second Amendment, with the unique American individualism wrapped around it, underlies all. It is Americas fundamental gun problem.

As Michael Waldman at the Brennan Center for Justice suggests in Politico Magazine, the NRAs construing of the Second Amendment as an unconditional right to own and carry guns (a right beyond actual constitutional law in Supreme Court rulings) is why it thrives and has clout.

Without clout derived from Second Amendment hyperbole, we might not have, for instance, stand your ground laws in more than 20 states starting with Florida in 2005, laws that professors Cheng Cheng and Mark Hoekstra report in the Journal of Human Resources do not deter crime and are associated with more killing.

Pockets of America were waiting for the NRAs Second Amendment fertilizer.

For many gun advocates, the gun is an important aspect of ones identity and self-worth, a symbol of power and prowess in their cultural groups. Dan Kahan at Yale University with co-investigators studied gun-safety perceptions and wrote in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies how those most likely to see guns as safest of all were the persons who need guns the most in order to occupy social roles and display individual virtues within their cultural communities.

Or, as the essayist Alec Wilkinson writes more starkly on The New Yorkers website, although the (gun) issue is treated as a right and a matter of democracy underlying all is that a gun is the most powerful device there is to accessorize the ego.

A gun owner carrying his semiautomatic long rifle into a family department store, like Target, in a state permitting such if asked why will likely say because it is his right. He is unlikely to reveal the self-gratification gained from demonstrating the prowess and power of his identity, gained from using the gun to accessorize the ego. The Second Amendment here is convenient clothing to cover deeper unspoken needs, needs that go beyond the understandable pleasures and functions of typical hunting, for instance.

Australia is often mentioned as an example of nationwide gun-safety legislation reducing gun violence. Following the 1996 massacre of 35 people in Port Arthur, Australia, the government swiftly passed substantial gun-safety legislation. And as Professors Simon Chapman, Philip Alpers and Michael Jones wrote in JAMAs June 2016 issue, (F)rom 1979-1996 (before gun law reforms), 13 fatal mass shootings occurred in Australia, whereas from 1997 through May 2016 (after gun-law reforms), no fatal mass shootings occurred.

But Australia also has nothing akin to the Second Amendment.

Anthropologist Abigail Kohn studied gun owners in the U.S. and Australia who were engaged in sport shooting. She describes in the Journal of Firearms and Public Policy (2004) how it is immediately apparent when speaking to American shooters that they find it impossible to separate their gun ownership, even their interest in sport shooting, from a particular moral discourse around self, home, family, and national identity.

And thus, American shooters are hostile to gun control because just as guns represent freedom, independence the best of American core values gun control represents trampling on those core values.

In contrast, the Australians view guns as inseparable from shooting sports. And perhaps most importantly, Australian shooters believe that attending to gun laws, respecting the concept of gun laws, is a crucial part of being a good shooter; this is the essence of civic duty that Australian shooters conflate with being a good Australian. While the Australian shooters thought some gun-safety policies were useless and stupid, they thought that overall gun-safety measures were a legitimate means by which the government can control the potential violence that guns can do.

Unlike Australia (itself an individualist-oriented country), America has the Second Amendment. And that amendment has fostered a unique individualism around the gun, an individualism perpetrating more harm than safety.

Maybe someday the Second Amendment will no longer reign as a prop serving other purposes and, thus, substantive federal gun-safety legislation happens. But as Professor Charles Collier wrote in Dissent Magazine: Unlimited gun violence is, for the foreseeable future, our (Americas) fate and our doom (and, in a sense, our punishment for (Second Amendment) rights-based hubris).

The Second Amendment, today, is a song of many distorted verses. A song of a uniquely American tragedy.

Fred Decker is a sociologist in Bowie, Md., with a background in health and social policy research. He wrote this for the Orlando Sentinel.

See the article here:

Second Amendment: An American tragedy | Local | azdailysun.com – Arizona Daily Sun

Joe Arpaio, former Arizona sheriff, to speak at Second Amendment rally in Belchertown – Amherst Bulletin

BELCHERTOWN Joe Arpaio, former sheriff of Arizonas Maricopa County who has styled himself Americas Toughest Sheriff, will be a guest speaker this weekend at a Second Amendment rally in town.

Arpaio, who turns 85 this week, will speak at Belchertowns 4th Annual Flag Day Second Amendment Rally, which starts at 10 a.m. Saturday at the Swift River Sportsman Club.

Dave Kopacz, organizer of the rally, said Arpaio will probably speak around noon, though the official schedule for the event is still in the works.

Arpaio is a Massachusetts native, born in Springfield. He became nationally known in the last 15 years for his hardline stances on immigration, for battling findings of racial profiling in his sheriffs department, and for his campaign to prove that President Obamas birth certificate was forged, which he continued to wage as recently as last fall.

After 24 years in office, Arpaio lost his latest re-election bid in November. His trial in federal court on a criminal contempt charge in connection with racial profiling is pending.

The Belchertown rally will also feature several other speakers, including Jeanette Finicum, the widow of Robert LaVoy Finicum, one of the occupiers at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon who was shot and killed during the armed standoff in January 2016.

Kopacz said he sees gun rights and property rights as connected. He believes the issues surrounding federal land use that came to a head in Oregon are similar to issues surrounding land trusts in Massachusetts.

We want to make sure we connect and parallel that with what is going on here, he said of the Oregon occupation.

Local Second Amendment activists will speak at the rally, too. Kopacz said both national and local speakers are important for the event.

I use the national guys to bring in the crowds, and the local guys to put them to work after, Kopacz said.

See the rest here:

Joe Arpaio, former Arizona sheriff, to speak at Second Amendment rally in Belchertown – Amherst Bulletin

No, the Second Amendment Is Not Given Special Treatment – National Review

In the course of yet another dull, straw-clutching broadside against the right to keep and bear arms, the Atlantics David Frum repeats a commonly asserted myth:

That kind of supposedly defensive, actually aggressive, violence has become an even graver risk after today, in an American society that regards personal arsenals to be at least as much of a human right as the rights of free speech and peaceful assemblyand in actual practice, often amorefundamental right.

This is a popular talking point based upon a popular premise: That the Second Amendment is accorded a latitude that is no other. The trouble for Frum is that its nonsense. As it should be, the First Amendment is extremely broadly interpreted,to the point at which even sedition is legal unless it is accompanied by incitement to imminent violence. In recent years, the courts have prohibitedthe government from banning crushvideos in which kittens are killed with stilettos; it has protected the rights of bigots to protest military funerals; and it has gutted the countrys campaign-finance laws on the (correct) grounds that they cant be enforced without undermining core political expression. Before that, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, it had outlined speech protections that have no parallel in the history of the world.

Has the same thing happened for the Second, as Frum suggests? Not on your life. Indeed, Second Amendment advocates such as myself could only dream of such a trend. As is clear from his cringeworthy displayson Twitter, Frum does not have even a basic grasp of Americas gun laws, forif he did hed understand just how ridiculous is his claim. ASecond Amendment jurisprudence that echoed or exceeded the First would yield the voiding of almost every one of the thousands upon thousands of gun laws that obtain; itwould put an end to all licensing, requests for cause, andbackground checks; it would nix the prior restraint rules that areimposed in many states; it would open up the right to felons, to children, and to those in institutions; and, crucially, it would meanthat the courts had to usestrict scrutiny when evaluating claims, rather than the thumb-on-the-scales intermediate level that they tend to opt for in cases to do with guns. In practice, the First Amendment is as close to an unalienable right as has ever existed; one can do very little to lose ones shot at enjoying it. The Second, by contrast, is heavily locked down. One can argue that thats good or that, in practice, its inevitable and one can complain that America is far more liberal on the matter of arms than every other free country. But one cannot pretend that, culturally or legally, the Second Amendment is accorded special treatment.

Unless, that is, one doesnt care whats true and whats not.

Read this article:

No, the Second Amendment Is Not Given Special Treatment – National Review

Brooks Affirms Second Amendment Support After Being Asked if Scalise Shooting Changed His Gun Views – Washington Free Beacon

BY: David Rutz June 14, 2017 10:43 am

Rep. Mo Brooks (R., Ala.) was asked hours after witnessing the shooting of one of his colleagues if the incident had changed his views on gun rights, but he said he remained supportive of the Second Amendment.

Brooks was present when House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R., La.) and four others were wounded Wednesday by a gunman in Alexandria, Va., during a baseball practice for Republican congressmen.

A reporter at a press conference asked Brooks if the shooting changed his view on the “gun situation” in America.

“Not with respect to the Second Amendment,” Brooks said. “The Second Amendment right to bear arms is to help ensure that we always have a republic. And as with any constitutional provision in the Bill of Rights, there are adverse aspects to each of those rights that we enjoy as people, and what we just saw here is one of the bad side effects of someone not exercising those rights properly.”

He added, “We are not going to get rid of freedom of speech” simply because some people say ugly things, or get rid of the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure rights because some criminals could go free on technicalities.

“These rights are there to protect Americans, and while each of them has a negative aspect to them, they are fundamental to our being the greatest nation in world history. So no, I’m not changing my position on any of the rights we enjoy as Americans,” he said.

Brooks said he would like to know more about the background of the suspected shooter before passing judgment on him.

UPDATE: 12:34 P.M.:This article was updated to correct that the gunman wounded five people, not four.

View original post here:

Brooks Affirms Second Amendment Support After Being Asked if Scalise Shooting Changed His Gun Views – Washington Free Beacon

Scalise shot: What the Virginia attack should teach us – the Second Amendment is not the problem, in fact it can … – Fox News

Within the whirlwind of the news cycle the anti-Second Amendment refrain has already begun. CNN hosts and the editorial boards at many big newspapers are muttering the gun, the gun, as if the gun is responsible, as if the gun had an evil spirit that convinced this mannot a shooter as so many in the media will call him, but a killer, a would-be murdererto shoot members of Congress and their staff. As if an American freedom is causing some to do evil.

It is too early in this attempt at mass murder to know much about this murderer now confirmed dead, and identified as James T. Hodgkinson his mental state or why he chose to do evil. But it is not too early to see the heroism from Capitol Hill Police and others. It is not too early to see American goodness and even innocence for what it is.

At 7:15 a.m. Rep. Brad Wenstrup and Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Jeff Flake, and about two dozen others were at Simpson Field in Virginia just outside of Washington, D.C., to practice for the Congressional Baseball Game thats scheduled for June 15 at Nationals Park, a game that has been a tradition since 1909. They were getting ready to put politics aside and to come together again within an American pastime.

Early reports indicate that, from behind a dugout, shots began to shatter the early bright June morning. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise went down, shot in the hip, according to early reports. A congressional aide and two Capitol Police officers were also hit.

Many are already blaming the gun used or gun-rights in general, as if a long-held American freedom is to blame.

None of the congressmen or their staff members were armed. Sen. Rand Paul said that if Capitol Police werent there it would have been a massacre. This killer could have walked around unhindered if that were the case, as has happened too many times before in gun-free zones.

Police investigate a shooting scene after a gunman opened fire on Republican members of Congress during a baseball practice near Washington in Alexandria, Virginia, June 14, 2017. (REUTERS/Joshua Roberts)

The police were there because Rep. Scalise, being a member in congressional leadership, had a security detail.

The gunfight went on reportedly for a mad 10 minutes. The murderer had taken cover and the officers were likely, at least at first, only armed with their sidearms. Witnesses say Rep. Scalise dragged himself as far as he could away from the killer and toward people taking cover.

The police kept the killer pinned down and eventually took him out its not clear exactly how he was taken down.

Police man a shooting scene after a gunman opened fire on Republican members of Congress during a baseball practice near Washington in Alexandria, Virginia, June 14, 2017. (REUTERS/Joshua Roberts)

As soon as the police got the killer, Rep. Flake says he and Rep. Wenstrup, who is also a physician, ran onto the field to help Scalise, to apply pressure to his wound. Other physicians were soon on the scene as first-responders heroically rushed to the scene.

Now the analysis and the speculation has already turned political. Many are already blaming the gun used or gun-rights in general, as if a long-held American freedom is to blame.

Many in the media wont acknowledge that over 100 million Americans now legally own guns for sport or self-defense and that these people are largely safe and responsible.

They also arent likely to report that homicides are more likely to occur in areas with the strictest gun controls in place and they are unlikely to interview the women and others who have unfortunately had to rely on their right to bear arms to fend off attackers.

Police investigate a shooting scene after a gunman opened fire on Republican members of Congress during a baseball practice near Washington in Alexandria, Virginia, June 14, 2017. (REUTERS/Joshua Roberts)

Right now, about 15 million Americans have concealed-carry permits to carry handgunsthis number has been rising fast. Studies show that these people rarely commit violent crimes.

In the aftermath of evil visited upon us like this, it is also easy to forget how good and safe America really is. Any foreigner who has visited Capitol Hill must have been surprised with just how open the city isWashington, D.C., is still often thought of as a big, small town. Congressmen largely walk the sidewalks without security details. If someone wants to meet their representative it can often be arranged. A visitor must simply pass through one security checkpoint in the congressional buildings.

Maybe some of that needs to change, especially in view of recent terrorist attacks, but American freedom is not the problem, but rather it is what we are fighting for.

Frank Miniter is author of “The Future of the Gun” & “The Ultimate Mans Survival Guide”. His latest book is,is “Kill Big Brother”, a cyber-thriller that shows how to balance freedom with security without diminishing the U.S. Bill of Rights.

Read more:

Scalise shot: What the Virginia attack should teach us – the Second Amendment is not the problem, in fact it can … – Fox News

Vox Founder Notes GOP Supports 2nd Amendment To Overthrow Gov’t While Blood Is Still On The Field – The Daily Caller

Liberal writer Matthew Yglesias brought up Senator Rand Pauls support for the second amendment as a way to check tyrannical governments mere hours after the Kentucky Republican and others were shot at while practicing baseball.

A shooter opened fire on Republican lawmakers and staff Wednesday morning as they practiced for an annual charity baseball game. House Majority WhipSteve Scalise and others were shot.

In response to the news, Yglesias tweeted out a June 2016 comment from Paul where he said that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to shoot at the government when it becomes tyrannical. Ygelsias is a co-founder of the liberal news site Vox.

The tweet Ygelsiasreferenced was part ofPaul live tweeting of someone elses speech. One of the Senators staffers confirmed to The Daily Caller News Foundation that the tweet wasntPauls words.

The shooter hit Scalise, congressional staffer Zack Barth, two Capitol Police officers, and lobbyist Matt Mika. The Capitol Police officers, who were part of Scalises security detail, returned fire.

Yglesias did not return requests for comment to TheDCNF.

A self-proclaimed Black Activist tweeted out Pauls old comment as well, indicating Yglesias wasnt alone in his opinion.

Paul was in the outfield when the gunman started firing at GOP lawmakers, hitting Scalise and several others. Paul said the shooter turned the baseball field into a killing field.

I do believe without the Capitol Hill police, it would have been a massacre, Paul said in a television interview after the shooting. We had no defense, no defense at all. We are lucky Scalise was there. This was his security detail. Without them, it would have been a massacre. There was no stopping this guy. We were like sitting ducks. It was a wide open field, its a killing field.

The suspected shooter died from his wounds after being taken to the hospital. Scalise is in stable condition, and Capitol Police officers who were shot defending lawmakers are expected to survive, according to NBC.

Vox falselyclaimed that the U.S. had 11.6 times more mass shootings than actually occurred, according to an analysis previously by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Follow Andrew on Twitter

Send tips to andrew@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [emailprotected].

Read more:

Vox Founder Notes GOP Supports 2nd Amendment To Overthrow Gov’t While Blood Is Still On The Field – The Daily Caller

Sen. Rand Paul’s year-old Second Amendment tweet resurfaces after shooting – The Daily Dot

After a gunman opened fire on several Republican congressmen and their staffers at a baseball field in Virginia on Wednesday morning, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told reporters that the attack could have ended in a massacre had it not been for the Capitol Police.

Sen. Paul was sitting in the batting cage when he heard the gunshots; he had been practicing with the GOP congressional baseball team. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and four others who were also in attendance were injured, but Capitol Police officers quickly engaged with and apprehended the perpetrator, whom police later identified as 66-year-old James T. Hodgkinson from Illinois.

Everybody probably would have died except for the fact that the Capitol Hill police were there, Paul told MSNBC. Unfortunately, [Rep. Scalise] was hit and I hope he does well, but also by him being there it probably saved everyone elses lives because if you dont have a leadership person there, there would have been no security there.

Paul also released a statement echoing his praise and appreciation for the Capitol Police officers who stopped the shooter.

The incident quickly ignited a gun control debate online where the shooting was utilized by those who advocate for stricter gun laws, on one hand, as well as those believe looser gun laws could have prevented such an attack and helped stopped the one that occurred.

Meanwhile, in the House of Representatives, a debate on the availability of gun silencers scheduled Wednesday afternoon was delayed after the shooting.

As the heated debated centered on Second Amendment rights intensifies once again, one of Sen. Pauls own tweets resurfacedone that some suggest smacks of hypocrisy, given his press statements.

In June last year, the Republican appeared to quote Fox News contributor Judge Napolitano on Twitter, which said: [We] have a Second Amendment to shoot at the government when it becomes tyrannical!

Paul has presenteda pro-gun stance throughout his political career, with a voting record to show it. He has opposed legislation he believed impinged on the constitutional right to ownership, which maintains the right to bear arms as necessary to the security of a free State.

However, on Wednesday, critics claim, Paul found himself at the wrong end of his own argument when he was targeted himself.

Read more:

Sen. Rand Paul’s year-old Second Amendment tweet resurfaces after shooting – The Daily Dot

Second Amendment Foundation: Alexandria Shooting the Result of ‘Democratic Hate Speech’ – Breitbart News

Breitbart News reported that five persons were injured when66-year-oldJames T. Hodgkinson opened fire on Republican House and Senate members who were practicing baseball. Rep.Steve Scalise (R-LA) and four others were injured in the attack. Hodgkinson was shot and killed by police.

SAF sent Breitbart News a statement on the attack:

Todays shooting of Congressman Steve Scalise (R-LA), and others including an aide and two Capitol Police officers is the result of Democratic hate speech toward President Donald Trump and majority Republicans, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

This hate speech that has been going on since Donald Trump was elected, said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. It gets their voter base agitated and this is what happens as a result. Is this just a coincidence this happened on the presidents birthday?

The gunman has been identified as James Hodgkinson of Illinois. A Facebook page belonging to the fatally-wounded suspect suggests that he was a socialist Democrat, and was a follower of Sen. Bernie Sanders. Sanders confirmed that Hodgkinson was apparently a volunteer in his 2016 presidential campaign.

When liberal leftists support the assassination of President Trump on stage what do you expect to happen, Gottlieb stated. Hate speech and actions incite this kind of violence. It is time for Democrats like Reps. Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Chuck Schumer, Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton and many of the talking heads at CNN and MSNBC to shut up.

SAF also observed:

Congressman Scalise and others at the field this morning were lucky to have the protection of courageous Capitol police officers, the good guys with guns who took down a bad guy with a gun, he continued. But what if they hadnt been present?

Congressman Mike Bishop of Michigan, who was at the baseball field, told a reporter, The only reason why any of us walked out of this thing, by the grace of God, one of the folks here had a weapon to fire back and give us a moment to find cover.

Maybe now the anti-gun rights Democrats will support everyones right to carry a firearm for self-defense, Gottlieb said. We are the first line of defense when it comes to personal protection from crazed individuals.

Breitbart News spoke with SAFs Alan Gottlieb about the calls for more gun control that have already been made in reaction to the shooting. He responded, Democrats should ban their hate speech, not our guns for self-defense.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host of Bullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Read the original here:

Second Amendment Foundation: Alexandria Shooting the Result of ‘Democratic Hate Speech’ – Breitbart News

Chadwick Moore: LGBTQ People Don’t Know What The Second Amendment Is – Peacock Panache

The former Out Magazine writerwho once interviewed hate speech promulgator Milo Yiannopoulos for a controversial cover story just argued LGBTQ peopleprobably dont know what the Second Amendment is. The statement came as part of a discussion about the Pulse Orlando anniversary memorial held in New York City.

At issue, LGBTQ-centric Gays Against Guns organized and held a memorial rally at Stonewall Inn to simultaneously remember the 49 people killed at Pulse while calling for more robust gun regulations to reduce and eventually end mass gun violence.

Gays Against Guns Pulse Memorial Rally at the Stonewall Inn

In the events invitation, the memorial rally was described as a solemn and joyfully defiant experience as we remember the tragedy that brought the fight for gun violence prevention directly into our LGBTQ nightlife community.

The event itself much like evolving pride parades-turned-resist marches nationwide demonstrates a change in the way the LGBTQ community engages with the rest of the nation regarding their rights, their lives, and their safety. Suffice to say, even memorials are now becoming occasions to fight back against a regime that refuses to acknowledge the need for let alone discuss sensible gun regulations.

(Those in the LGBTQ community who were around at the height of the AIDS crisis can attest to the fact that this is not the first time memorials for LGBTQ people have taken on an explicit resistance-themed political tone.) That said

Cue former Out writer and homocon Chadwick Moore to insert his opinion on the memorial and its political tone in a discussion with Foxs Tucker Carlson.

Well, yesterday was theone year anniversary of the Pulse nightclub massacre, inwhich Islamic radical Omar Mateen murdered 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, Tucker Carlson said. To commemorate the shoot a vigil was held in New York City outside the Stonewall Inn, siteof a 60s gay rights demonstration. But instead of just remembering the victim, thevigil becamean anti-gun rally.

He added, Journalist Chadwick Moore was there at the vigil and he joins us now to tell uswhat happened next. So Chadwick, this was supposed to be a vigilfor the people who die, almost 50 who died in thatmassacre, but it becamesomething else?

Thats right.I think mostpeople showed up, the Stonewall is sort of gay, its a gay holy site, right. Its the equivalent ofMecca for Muslims, Moore began. Its where everyone goes whentheres a large event that hasaffected the community, whetherthats tragic or celebratory.Its where people would haveinstinctively shown up tocommemorate the one-yearanniversary.

What happened was is this farleft anti-gun group essentiallygot the permit, Im assuming, tohold a rally that day, outside, yesterday outside of Stonewall, he continued. They were the sponsors of this event. So people who were coming to mourn, who were coming to be together to reflect, who wanted to give politics a break instead were beingsubjected to this sort ofanti-gun propaganda, all of these signs, all of this anti-Trumpism.

Later, he added, Most gay people arent political. Most gay people, you know, they care about pop music and going to the beach. They probably dont know what the Second Amendment is. And so they show up to be together, to celebrate the community, to mourn together and instead they are fed this anti-gun nonsense.

To listen to the way Moore and Carlson portrayed the event, Gays Against Guns tricked mourning non-political LGBTQ people into attending an anti-gun rally disguised as a vigil. In reality, nearly 1,500 people RSVPed to the event on Facebook knowing what it would be, and approximately three thousand attended and stayed even if they found out after the fact that it was organized by a group aimed at passing sensible gun regulations.

These people were not bamboozled; they came, they mourned, and they resisted, just as LGBTQ people and their allies across the nation are doing throughout the month of June.

Photos of the event back that point.

But Moores broader point also misses the mark. He paints the LGBTQ community as a group of people disconnected from the horrors of the current administration. His broad strokes accuse LGBTQ people of going to the beach and listening to music at clubs rather than knowing or understanding their constitutional civil rights. For being an LGBTQ writer, Moore doesnt seem to be able to take an accurate pulse of his own community.

In Los Angeles, for example, the annual pride march morphed into a resistance march. Concurrent with pride celebrations, cities across the nation held Equality rallies and marches to coincide with the national Equality March in DC on Sunday, June 11, 2017. The political resistance to Trump and the LGBTQ communitys vocal acknowledgement that their rights are at stake is no secret.

For Moore to portray LGBTQ people as nave party-goers unaware of their own civil rights isnt just disingenuous, its simply fake news.

Heres video of the exchange courtesy of Media Matters:

Like Loading…

More here:

Chadwick Moore: LGBTQ People Don’t Know What The Second Amendment Is – Peacock Panache

Does the Second Amendment cover edged weapons? – Hot Air Hot Air – Hot Air

Eugene Volokh is tackling a less common Second Amendment argument this week. It stems from a recent decision made by the New Jersey state supreme court involving a resident who was convicted of Unlawful Possession of a Weapon. The crime in question was the fact that there was a dispute going on with a neighbor in his apartment complex and when he came pounding on the door, the defendant answered the door with a machete in his hand. He may or may not have pointed it at the unruly neighbor (stories conflict on that point) but he definitely didnt injure or even attack the person. The state supreme court overturned the conviction and sent the case back for a new trial with different instructions from the judge because the defendants rights had been violated.

This leads Volokh to answer another question which he apparently gets fairly often from people who dont follow the subject closely. Are swords, knifes, machetes and other blade weapons covered by the Second Amendment? We spend so much of our time talking about guns that this area of hardware doesnt come up very often. His conclusions: (The Volokh Conspiracy, Washington Post)

This should be obvious, I think: The Second Amendment protects arms, and the D.C. v. Heller opinion discusses bows and knives as examples of such arms; opinions in the 1800s and 1900s dealing with state constitutional rights to bear arms also mention bladed weapons; and post-Heller opinions, such as from courts in Connecticut, Michigan, and Wisconsin agree. But some have disagreed the Massachusetts government in the Caetano stun gun case before the Massachusetts high court, for instance, argued that Heller was limited to firearms. The New Jersey decision should be a helpful precedent, then, for other non-gun cases (though of course it doesnt dispose of the question of exactly what weapons are protected, and where they can be possessed).

The Constitution Society has a handy document you might want to bookmark which covers this, as well as many other questions on related topics. In it, they go into a bit more detail about precisely what the Founders intended and what classes of weapons should be covered. (Emphasis added)

The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define arms. When it was adopted, arms included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare. That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line.

Personally, they go a bit further over the gray line that must be drawn between personal weaponry and group combat weapons for my taste (grenade launchers and anti-tank missiles seem a bit heavy handed) but thats mostly about right I think. Keep in mind that not everyone could afford a firearm at the time of the nations founding and many may have been making do with a bow, a knife or even a farm implement. Im not sure how common swords were for the layman at the time (good ones were also historically quite expensive) but that would have to fall into the same class.

Its also commonly noted in literature of the time that people signing up for militia duty would need to be provided with a rifle if they couldnt afford their own. This, by the way, is where we get the term well regulated because regulated in that context meant properly supplied. But in any event, Volokh has some good information in both of the articles linked above which I thought you might find useful. And since weve recently seen them used by terrorists, might the Second Amendment also cover hammers if you were holding one when you answered the door? Since you can clearly kill someone with a well placed hammer blow Id have to say yes. Same for baseball bats.

Read more from the original source:

Does the Second Amendment cover edged weapons? – Hot Air Hot Air – Hot Air

The Second Amendment protects some bladed weapons, and not just firearms – Washington Post

The New Jersey machete decision is important because it rejects a spontaneity requirement for arming yourself at home (the states theory that you could pick up a weapon against an imminent attack, but you cant come to the door with the weapon just in case). But its also important because it reaffirms that the Second Amendment protects not just guns but other weapons as well.

This should be obvious, I think: The Second Amendment protects arms, and the D.C. v. Heller opinion discusses bows and knives as examples of such arms; opinions in the 1800s and 1900s dealing with state constitutional rights to bear arms also mention bladed weapons; and post-Heller opinions, such as from courts in Connecticut, Michigan, and Wisconsin agree. But some have disagreed the Massachusetts government in the Caetano stun gun case before the Massachusetts high court, for instance, argued that Heller was limited to firearms. The New Jersey decision should be a helpful precedent, then, for other non-gun cases (though of course it doesnt dispose of the question of exactly what weapons are protected, and where they can be possessed).

Read this article:

The Second Amendment protects some bladed weapons, and not just firearms – Washington Post

Second Amendment right to meet people at the door with a machete by your side? – Washington Post

Yes, says the New Jersey (!) Supreme Court in yesterdays unanimous State v. Montalvo opinion; here are the facts, from the courts syllabus:

This appeal concerns whether an individual may lawfully possess and hold a weapon for self-defense in his home while answering the front door.

Defendant Crisoforo Montalvo and his wife lived directly above Arturs Daleckis and his wife. On the night of March 24, 2012, Daleckis grew agitated by noise emanating from Montalvos unit; he stood on his bed and knocked on the ceiling three or four times. Montalvo then proceeded downstairs and knocked on Daleckiss door. Montalvo picked up a small table belonging to Daleckis and threw it off the front porch, breaking it.

After Montalvo returned to his unit, Daleckis knocked on the door. Montalvo and his wife testified that they heard knocking, kicking, and [*2] slamming on the door. Montalvo testified that he became scared for himself, his wife, and their unborn child. As a precautionary measure, Montalvo retrieved a machete from a closet as he moved to answer the door. Daleckis testified that Montalvo pointed the machete at him. Montalvo testified that he kept the machete in his hand, behind his leg, and below his waist while speaking with Daleckis.

Montalvo was acquitted of possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose (Count One, in the discussion below) but convicted of unlawful possession of a weapon (Count Two). At trial, the judge included a self-defense instruction as to the unlawful-purpose charge but didnt give it as to the unlawful-possession charge.

During deliberations, the jury sent the trial judge a note asking, Second charge, unlawful possession of a weapon, is self[-]defense considered a lawful use?.’ The judge responded thus:

I remind you that it is necessary for the State to prove that it, meaning the object[,] was possessed under such circumstances that a reasonable person would recognize that it was likely to be used as a weapon. In other words, under circumstances where it posed a likely threat of harm to others and/or a likely threat of damage to property, you may consider factors such as the surrounding circumstances as well as the size, shape, and condition of the object; the nature of its concealment; the time, place and actions of the defendant; when it was found in his possession to determine whether or not the object was manifestly appropriate for its lawful uses.

This statute is 2C:39-5(d). Section 5(d) prohibits the possession of implements as weapons even if possessed for precautionary purposes, except in situations of immediate and imminent danger.

Although self[-]defense involves a lawful use of a weapon, it does not justify the unlawful possession [*20] of the weapon under Section 5(d) except when a person uses a weapon after arming himself or herself spontaneously to repel an immediate danger.

Obviously, there may be circumstances in which a weapon is seized in response to an immediate danger, but ensuing circumstances render its use unnecessary. Under such conditions, the individual may take immediate possession of the weapon out of necessity rather than self[-]defense. However, it would appear that the availability of necessity as a justification for the immediate possession of a weapon, as with self[-]defense, is limited only to cases of spontaneous and compelling danger. Please resume your deliberations.

But the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the judge should have instructed the jury as to self-defense:

[The unlawful-possession statute] prohibits the possession of any weapon, other than certain firearms, when an actor has not yet formed an intent to use [the] object as a weapon [but] possesses it under circumstances in which it is likely to be so used. [This] class of possessory weapons offenses is codified by N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d), which states that [a]ny person who knowingly has in his possession any other weapon under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses as it may have is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree. The purpose of Section 5(d) is to protect[] citizens from the threat of harm while permitting the use of objects such as knives in a manner consistent with a free and civilized society. The statute applies to circumstances resulting in a threat of harm to persons or property.

A machete constitutes a weapon within this statutory scheme. See N.J.S.A. 2C:39-1(r) (defining weapon as anything readily capable of lethal use or inflicting serious bodily injury); State v. Irizarry (N.J. App. Div. 1994) (observing N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d) concerns weapons such as knives and machetes[] that have both lawful and unlawful uses).

Self-defense is a potential defense to a possessory weapons offense. The Second Amendment guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation, D.C. v. Heller (2008) . It extends to all instruments that constitute bearable arms.

In Heller, the Supreme Court recognized that the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. New Jerseys statutes protect the right of self-defense. Generally, the use of force against another person is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by another.

The use of deadly force for self-defense is justifiable only when the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily injury, unless the actor provoked the use of force or knows he can safely retreat. Thus, the defensive conduct must be based on a reasonable belief of potential harm, and the defensive force must be proportional to the offensive force.

Montalvo legally possessed a machete in his home. It is of no matter whether his possession was for roofing or for self-defense because either would qualify as a lawful purpose. [T]he Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to possess weapons, including machetes, in the home for self-defense purposes. Thus, Montalvo had a constitutional right to possess the machete in his home for his own defense and that of his pregnant wife. Because the courts instructions did not convey this principle, the instructions were erroneous.

The State asserts that answering an angry knock at the door with a weapon in hand constitutes possession under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses as it may have. That position is untenable.

The right to possess a weapon in ones own home for self-defense would be of little effect if one were required to keep the weapon out-of-hand, picking it up only spontaneously. Such a rule would negate the purpose of possessing a weapon for defense of the home.

The court sent the case back for a possible retrial, so the jury could decide whether Montalvo indeed just used the machete for defensive purposes. (The state argued, for instance, that he also took it outside and chopped at the porch that he shared with Daleckis; if those were the facts, the court said, that would be an unlawful purpose, but if the facts were as Montalvo claimed they were, his conduct would be lawful self-defense.)

Finally, the court tried to avoid this problem in the future, by directing its Committee on Model Criminal Jury Charges to review and revise the model jury instruction for the unlawful possession offense:

We suggest the following language for the Committees consideration in refashioning the charge: Determining whether the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant possessed a weapon in his home under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for a lawful use requires special considerations. Persons may lawfully possess weapons in their homes, even though possession of those same weapons may not be manifestly appropriate outside the home. Using a twelve-inch steak knife in a kitchen to prepare dinner is lawful and possessing it as means of defense in case of a home invasion is lawful as well; carrying the same knife on the street on the way to pick up groceries may not be manifestly appropriate.

Individuals may possess in their homes objects that serve multiple lawful purposes, including the purpose of anticipatory self-defense. In this case, Montalvo possessed at home a machete he used in his roofing job. He was lawfully entitled to possess that machete as a weapon in his home as a means of defending himself and his family from attack as well. The right to possess that weapon, however, does not mean that it can be used without justification.

An individual who responds to the door of his home with a concealed weapon that threatens no one acts within the bounds of the law. He need give no justification for what he is lawfully allowed to do.

On the other hand, an individual may not threaten another with a weapon, even within the confines of his home, without lawful justification. Thus, Montalvo could not answer the door threatening the use of a machete merely for the purpose of inciting fear in another. He could threaten the use of the machete, however, if he had a sincere or reasonable belief that the show of such force was necessary to protect himself or his wife from an imminent attack.

The burden always remains on the State to prove that defendant did not lawfully possess the weapon in his home or, if the weapon was threatened against another, that possession of the weapon was not manifestly appropriate for the purpose of self-defense.

Sounds right to me, at least as to home possession. (What is the proper scope of the Second Amendment outside the home is a hotly contested matter, on which courts have split, and which the Supreme Court is currently being asked to consider, in the Peruta petition.)

Read this article:

Second Amendment right to meet people at the door with a machete by your side? – Washington Post

Michigan House: The Second Amendment is Your Concealed Carry Permit – Breitbart News

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Prior to the vote,state Rep. Lee Chatfield (R-Levering) said, There seems to be some confusion of what our constitutional rights are. Our right to defend ourselves comes from our Creator. Todays a good day, when you get to vote to uphold the constitution.

View original post here:

Michigan House: The Second Amendment is Your Concealed Carry Permit – Breitbart News

The Patriot Post Shop – 2A – Second Amendment

Stand for your Second Amendment rights against those Gun Free folks who just dont get it.

On Sale!

was: $3.50

now: $2.25

Free shipping!

$11.50

On Sale!

was: $3.50

now: $2.25

Free shipping!

$21.95

On Sale!

was: $3.50

now: $2.25

Free shipping!

On Sale!

was: $35.95

now: $22.95

On Sale!

was: $35.95

now: $22.95

On Sale!

was: $3.25

now: $2.25

Free shipping!

On Sale!

was: $5.99

now: $5.00

On Sale!

was: $2.95

now: $2.50

Free shipping!

On Sale!

was: $3.25

now: $2.25

Free shipping!

$25.99

$20.00

$20.00

15% Off!

was: $39.95

now: $33.96

15% Off!

was: $39.95

now: $33.96

$21.95

$23.75

$23.75

$21.95

$21.95

$21.95

On Sale!

was: $3.50

now: $2.25

Free shipping!

$21.95

$21.95

On Sale!

was: $3.50

now: $2.25

Free shipping!

On Sale!

was: $3.50

now: $2.25

Free shipping!

On Sale!

was: $3.50

now: $2.25

Free shipping!

$3.25

Free shipping!

$3.25

Free shipping!

25% Off!

was: $21.95

now: $16.46

$11.00

On Sale!

was: $3.25

now: $2.25

Free shipping!

$3.50

On Sale!

was: $3.50

now: $2.25

Free shipping!

$21.95

$21.95

$12.50

$12.50

On Sale!

was: $3.25

now: $2.25

Free shipping!

See the original post here:

The Patriot Post Shop – 2A – Second Amendment

Second Amendment: An American tragedy – Orlando Sentinel

A year ago, Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives staged a sit-in demanding a vote on federal gun-safety bills following the shootings at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. The National Rifle Associations lobbying was largely blamed for no vote happening. But looking deeper, the Second Amendment with the unique American individualism wrapped around it underlies all. It is Americas fundamental gun problem.

As Michael Waldman at the Brennan Center for Justice suggests in Politico Magazine (2014), the NRAs construing of the Second Amendment as an unconditional right to own and carry guns (a right beyond actual constitutional law in Supreme Court rulings) is why it thrives and has clout.

Without clout derived from Second Amendment hyperbole, we might not have, for instance, stand your ground laws in more than 20 states starting with Florida in 2005, laws that professors Cheng Cheng and Mark Hoekstra report in the Journal of Human Resources (2013) do not deter crime and are associated with more killing.

Pockets of America were waiting for the NRAs Second Amendment fertilizer.

For many gun advocates, the gun is an important aspect of ones identity and self-worth, a symbol of power and prowess in their cultural groups. Dan Kahan at Yale University with co-investigators studied gun-safety perceptions and wrote in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (2007) how those most likely to see guns as safest of all were the persons who need guns the most in order to occupy social roles and display individual virtues within their cultural communities.

Or, as the essayist Alec Wilkinson writes more starkly on The New Yorkers website (2012), although the [gun] issue is treated as a right and a matter of democracy underlying all is that a gun is the most powerful device there is to accessorize the ego.

A gun owner carrying his semiautomatic long rifle into a family department store, like Target, in a state permitting such if asked why will likely say because it is his right. He is unlikely to reveal the self-gratification gained from demonstrating the prowess and power of his identity, gained from using the gun to accessorize the ego. The Second Amendment here is convenient clothing to cover deeper unspoken needs, needs that go beyond the understandable pleasures and functions of typical hunting, for instance.

Australia is often mentioned as an example of nationwide gun-safety legislation reducing gun violence. Following the 1996 massacre of 35 people in Port Arthur, Australia, the government swiftly passed substantial gun-safety legislation. And as Professors Simon Chapman, Philip Alpers and Michael Jones wrote in JAMAs June 2016 issue, [F]rom 1979-1996 (before gun law reforms), 13 fatal mass shootings occurred in Australia, whereas from 1997 through May 2016 (after gun-law reforms), no fatal mass shootings occurred.

But Australia also has nothing akin to the Second Amendment.

Anthropologist Abigail Kohn studied gun owners in the U.S. and Australia who were engaged in sport shooting. She describes in the Journal of Firearms and Public Policy (2004) how it is immediately apparent when speaking to American shooters that they find it impossible to separate their gun ownership, even their interest in sport shooting, from a particular moral discourse around self, home, family, and national identity.

And thus, American shooters are hostile to gun control because just as guns represent freedom, independence the best of American core values gun control represents trampling on those core values.

In contrast, the Australians view guns as inseparable from shooting sports. And perhaps most importantly, Australian shooters believe that attending to gun laws, respecting the concept of gun laws, is a crucial part of being a good shooter; this is the essence of civic duty that Australian shooters conflate with being a good Australian. While the Australian shooters thought some gun-safety policies were useless and stupid, they thought that overall gun-safety measures were a legitimate means by which the government can control the potential violence that guns can do.

Unlike Australia (itself an individualist-oriented country), America has the Second Amendment. And that amendment has fostered a unique individualism around the gun, an individualism perpetrating more harm than safety.

Maybe someday the Second Amendment will no longer reign as a prop serving other purposes and, thus, substantive federal gun-safety legislation happens. But as Professor Charles Collier wrote in Dissent Magazine: Unlimited gun violence is, for the foreseeable future, our [Americas] fate and our doom (and, in a sense, our punishment for [Second Amendment] rights-based hubris).

The Second Amendment, today, is a song of many distorted verses. A song of a uniquely American tragedy.

Fred Decker is a sociologist in Bowie, Md., with a background in health and social policy research. He earned his doctorate from Florida State University.

Read more from the original source:

Second Amendment: An American tragedy – Orlando Sentinel

Use Second Amendment rights and arm yourself – Walla Walla Union-Bulletin

After her car broke down out of Lewiston, Idaho, a young woman accepted a ride from a man who was driving a marked company van. Later, a fisherman snagged one of her body parts out of the Snake River. She didnt have a concealed pistol permit.

An older lady, again in Lewiston, was brutally murdered, by a sex offender, while taking an evening walk in the park. She didnt have a concealed pistol permit.

While living in the Spokane region, I read about a woman who was stabbed to death while walking on one of the paved trails in the city. She didnt have a concealed pistol permit.

Another woman was kidnapped by two men and thrown, purse and all, into a cars trunk. While in the trunk, the woman retrieved her Smith & Wesson Snub Nose .38 revolver from her purse. When the trunk was opened, the woman shot both of her assailants. She had a concealed pistol permit.

Our graveyards are full of people who died needlessly because they had no way to defend themselves. The latest incident occurred in Portland where two citizens, trying to prevent a hate crime, were stabbed to death by a violent ex-convict who had repeatedly been released from prison after committing serious crimes.

Its ironic that our soft-on-crime liberals/progressives continually release vicious criminals to prey on us, and then suggest that the solution for crime is to take legally owned firearms away from the law-abiding. Thats typical liberal lunacy.

Now that the Republican Party, the party of liberty, is back in control well have at least a four-year respite from the Democratic Partys war on our rights to keep and bear arms. I note, too, that the subversive anti-gun lobby and its network of useful idiots, from Walla Walla to New York, have been deafeningly silent since the election.

Again, we were given the Second Amendment so that we could defend ourselves and our nation.

Now that were finally free, lets take advantage of our Second Amendment rights, which includes the right for law-abiding people to carry concealed arms for self-defense against the monsters.

Excerpt from:

Use Second Amendment rights and arm yourself – Walla Walla Union-Bulletin

2nd Amendment saves, as Oklahoman shoots babies’ would-be killer – Washington Times

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Yes indeed, the Second Amendment does save.

The latest instance of a gun saving a potential victim from a would-be crime comes by way of Oklahoma, where a Poteau resident, acting quickly, shot and killed a neighbor who was trying to drown his own twin, 3-month-old babies in a bathtub.

KFOR-TV reported Leland Foster, 27, was killed by his neighbor, Cash Freeman. The details?

City of Ada spokeswoman Lisa Bratcher told reporters that [Foster] died from gunshot wound after a 12-year-old girl ran from the home and alerted a neighbor for help, Fox News reported. Bratcher said the neighbor, identified as Cash Freeman, told police he went to the home armed with a handgun and shot Foster twice after seeing him holding the infants under water in a bathtub while threatening the childrens mother with a knife.

Sick.

Whats more, Foster, it was later learned, had been arrested in 2011 for domestic abuse by strangulation and arson.

Good thing Freeman had a gun. The babies were taken to the hospital and reported in stable condition.

He saved their lives by shooting Foster.

But now? Now Freemans worried he may face charges.

The district attorneys office is apparently deciding the matter now. But lets be real here: Only in the lefts mind would Freeman be considered criminal.

To everyone else to all the sane-thinking of the country?

Freemans a hero. A fast-acting, quick-thinking, cape-wearing hero. He couldve simply dialed 9-1-1 and waited probably too late for the police to arrive. He couldve dismissed the 12-year-old as delusional. He couldve done nothing stayed in his home, refused to answer the door, turned up the television to drown out the knocking.

Instead, he grabbed his gun and raced to the rescue. And because of that decision because of the fact, too, America has a Second Amendment that allows for private citizens to own weapons for this very purpose of self-defense and saving two little 3-month-old babies are still alive and well.

Let the lefties lurking in the political background, looking for reasons to strip innocent Americans of their firearms and occasions to blot the Second Amendment from the Constitution, chew on that for a while.

Original post:

2nd Amendment saves, as Oklahoman shoots babies’ would-be killer – Washington Times

Angel Mendez Case Shows Flawed Second Amendment … – National Review

One day in October 2010, a man by the name of Angel Mendez was at his home, asleep on a futon next to his pregnant girlfriend. Hed built the home himself, and it almost redefined the word modest. It was little more than a one-room shack in the back yard of another persons residence, with a blanket for a door. He awoke from his nap to see a person pulling back the blanket. He picked up his BB gun, and heard someone shout gun! before 15 rounds came flying at him. He was grievously injured, ultimately losing a leg. His unarmed girlfriend was also wounded.

It turns out the person who shot at Mendez was a police officer. Los Angeles County sheriffs deputies Christopher Conley and Jennifer Peterson were looking for a parolee who was believed to be armed and dangerous. They did not have a warrant to search Mendezs home, and they did not announce their presence or identity before accosting him. They entered, saw his BB gun, and started firing.

Lest you think this is a unique incident, in March I wrote about the terrible case of Andrew Scott. Like Mendez, Scott was an innocent man at home with his girlfriend when the police came. Like Mendez, he was mistaken by police for the armed and dangerous man they sought. They pounded on his door, but they didnt have a warrant, and they didnt announce themselves. Like any reasonable person, he was alarmed at the late-night disturbance and had no reason to expect the police were its source. So he grabbed his gun. When he opened his door, the police shot him dead in two seconds.

Neither Mendez nor Scott did anything wrong. They were both absolutely within their constitutional rights to pick up a weapon in response to the unidentified persons attempting to enter their homes. Yet Mendez, and Scotts heirs, have so far lost in court, unable to collect any meaningful compensation from the police officers who shot them precisely because they exercised those rights.

Scotts estate lost at the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the doctrine of qualified immunity protected the officers from having to pay any compensation to the innocent victims of their mistaken and wrongful use of force. Mendez lost yesterday in the Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously against a quirky Ninth Circuit use-of-force rule that allowed excessive-force claims where an officer intentionally or recklessly provokes a violent confrontation, if the provocation is an independent Fourth Amendment violation. In other words, if the officers violated Mendezs Fourth Amendment rights by unlawfully entering his home, they could be held liable for shooting Mendez even if the shooting itself might otherwise have been justified under existing law.

The Supreme Court found that the Ninth Circuits rule violated court precedent requiring lower courts to instead apply a totality of the circumstances approach to such cases, under which the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. The Supreme Court then remanded the case back to the lower courts, where the deck is already stacked against Mendez. The court of appeals, after all, already ruled that the officers had qualified immunity from Mendezs claim, and the trial court determined that Mendezs decision to pick up the BB gun was a superseding cause that limited the damages he could collect.

Its time for a different approach. Its time for Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to explicitly recognize and accommodate the Second Amendment. If the Second Amendment means anything at all, it means that I have a right to defend myself in my own home, where as Justice Scalia noted in District of Columbia v. Heller the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Moreover, the Second Amendment exists in large part to protect the private citizen from state tyranny. It is odd indeed, then, that current law largely grants officers of the state the right to kill me in my own home even if I do nothing wrong. Indeed, the very act of exercising my Second Amendment rights picking up a gun makes it less likely that I will prevail in court.

Theres an old saying that a person would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six. In times of peril, the thinking goes, its better to risk a jury than to risk your life. But under modern jurisprudence, when the police barge in youre likely to be carried by six and then judged wanting by one: Youll die in the face of overwhelming firepower, and your estates case will be tossed right out of court by a judge.

This presents the homeowner especially if he lives in a high-crime area where the need for a gun is most dire with an impossible situation. In the event of a home intrusion, he has to identify the intruder before he picks up his gun or risk being shot dead instantaneously. If the cops make a good-faith mistake, the burden is on the homeowner. If the cops act improperly, as they did in both Scott and Mendez, the burden is still on the homeowner. Heads, they win; tails you lose.

What is to be done about this? Civil-rights jurisprudence must recognize the central legal truths of Heller and empower the original meaning of the Constitution. Police use of force against an armed homeowner should be evaluated on Second Amendment grounds, not merely as an unreasonable search or seizure. Agents of the state should be held liable for violations of Second Amendment rights when they kill or injure someone solely because he or she exercised those rights. Shooting an innocent man in his own home because he grabs a gun when an unidentified person pounds on his door or barges through it isnt just an unreasonable search or seizure. Its a direct violation of his clearly established right to keep and bear arms.

Its not too much to ask police officers to obtain warrants and to knock and announce their presence in all but the most exigent circumstances. In both Scott and Mendez, there was no good reason for police not to identify themselves. Yet in both cases, a residents reasonable response to police failures undermined his efforts to hold them accountable for those failures in court. That is unacceptable. When a person enters my house unannounced, I should have the right to hold a gun in my hand. To argue otherwise is to eviscerate the Second Amendment.

READ MORE: A Federal Appeals Court Goes to War against the Second Amendment What Justice Gorsuch Might Mean for the Second Amendment Why Would Anyone Want a Firearm?

David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

Read more:

Angel Mendez Case Shows Flawed Second Amendment … – National Review

BRIEF-Blackrock Capital Investment says entered second amendment to second amended and restated senior … – Reuters

CANADA FX DEBT-C$ strengthens to nearly 1-week high, boosted by oil

(Adds dealer quotes and updates prices) * Canadian dollar at C$1.3439, or 74.41 U.S. cents * Loonie touches its strongest since May 31 at C$1.3438 * Bond prices higher across much of a flatter yield curve * 10-year yield touches a nearly seven-month low at 1.373 percent By Fergal Smith TORONTO, June 6 The Canadian dollar strengthened on Tuesday to a nearly one-week high against its U.S. counterpart as oil prices rose, but the range was narrow ahead of key ev

Read this article:

BRIEF-Blackrock Capital Investment says entered second amendment to second amended and restated senior … – Reuters


...89101112...203040...