U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- Grassroots Second Amendment activists from across the country are being urged to attend a 2nd Amendment Rally on Saturday, Nov. 2 at the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., where they hope to deliver a message that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now is the time for activists to make plans, as the rally is a mere six weeks away. It is being dubbed as a rally for the Second on the 2nd.

As explained by activist Rob Pincus, director of media relations for Save the Second, during an interview with the Right of the People podcast from the Gun Rights Policy Conference in Phoenix, Weve got a big election coming up next year. We need to remind the nation, we need to remind ourselves that we are the Second Amendment lobby and thats why the 2nd Amendment rally is important.

Pincus pointed to the rallys website for details. There is also a Facebook page where people can learn details as they emerge. He said there is no sponsorship for this event and no single organization. Funding is provided by people who care about the Second Amendment.

What has sunk in over the past few months is that far too many people are willing to write a checkand say okay, Ive done my part, and then move on, Pincus lamented.

According to the rally website, The Second Amendment Rally is a grassroots event, organized and funded by grassroots activists, open to all supporters of the Constitution and lovers of liberty.

If you own a gun, Pincus said during the podcast interview, you are the gun lobby.

The rally is scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. and run for three hours.

Just how many will appear would be speculation at this point, but Pincus suggested that organizers are hoping for several thousand rights activists to attend.

Maybe having 10,000 people, 15,000 people standing on the capitol steps, on the capitol grounds, listening to some of the most active leaders the most active advocates inside the Second Amendment community for a few hours on a Saturday afternoon, he observed, I think that will be an opportunity for everybody to remember that we are the gun lobby. We are the ones who exercise these rights. We are the ones who benefit from these rights.

Pincus was one of 91 speakers who appeared at the 34th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference over the past weekend. As Ammoland News reported earlier, this years event was the biggest in the conferences history. More than 1,100 people pre-registered and it appears many if not most of them showed up for at least part of the event. In addition, according to Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, the two-day event was viewed by more than 100,000 people as it was live-streamed on the SAF Facebook page.

In the past, gun rights activists have been a lethargic bunch, but this time around things are different. The Second Amendment has been under attack as never before, in part by anti-gunners exploiting mass shooting incidents to push bans on so-called semiautomatic assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, along with registration and one-gun-a-month schemes. Also on the gun control agenda are safe storage mandates, mandatory training requirements, expansion of so-called red flag laws and other restrictions suggesting that proponents are trying to turn Second Amendment-protected rights into government regulated privileges.

What also makes this year different for grassroots activism was the heat-of-the-moment candor by Democrat presidential candidate Robert Francis Beto ORourke during the recent debate. His declaration, Hell, yes were going to take your AR15, your AK47 finally erased any doubt that anti-gunners intend to disarm law-abiding American citizens.

Most noteworthy about the remark was the silence from all the other candidates on the stage, suggesting they all quietly concur with ORourkes threat. His comment was mentioned or alluded to repeatedly during the recent rights conference.

The Second Amendment expressly protects the rights of the individual, Pincus stated. The individual needs to get involved and the Second Amendment rally is an opportunity to do that.

About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor atTheGunMag.comand Liberty Park Press,author of multiple bookson the Right to Keep & Bear Arms and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

Originally posted here:

'2nd Amendment Rally' Planned Nov. 2 in Washington, DC - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

This is in response to the recent letter by Jeff Bishop. There are three points I want to make.

First, it is not the case that those who question the wisdom of allowing military style weapons to be largely available are confused by terminology. Few people think of the AR-15 as an assault rifle just because of the letters AR. This is irrelevant. Whether it is an AR or an AK, the point is the same.

Bishop goes on to assert that the only difference between the AR and other weapons is looks. Not true, and Im sure he knows it. A bolt action rifle that holds three rounds cannot take out fifty people in a matter of seconds. But an AR or AK or similar weapon with a thirty round detachable magazine that can quickly be changed is capable of doing just that. This is an important distinction

Guns were invented to kill people or animals. Automobiles , etc. were not invented or intended for the express purpose of killing.

Bishop says that many people use ARs for varmint hunting. So what? What is that compared to the lives of children? Is his desire to shoot rats or prairie dogs for pleasure more important than the lives of kids in school?

And I wonder if Bishop has kids or grand kids in school, would he rather have an attacker show up with a blunt object or an AR?

As for the second amendment, Bishop exhibits a complete lack of understanding. The second amendment was about national security. The founders were worried that a professional standing army would be a threat to liberty. Thus, a well-regulated militia was seen as necessary to the security of a free people. The British were still a threat, as were other potential adversaries. Further, Shays Rebellion was fresh in mind, and a militia was needed to put down possible future insurrections, including possible slave revolts. The second amendment was never about citizens fighting against the government. That is a myth.

Also, the Supreme Court never recognized an individual right to own firearms until the 2006 D.C. v. Heller decision. But even in the majority opinion, Justice Scalia, hardly an opponent of gun ownership, stated that certain regulations on firearms were legitimate.

Lastly, Bishop asserts that if assault weapons are banned, it is just an incremental move toward banning all guns. This has no basis in fact. We had an assault weapon ban for 10 years, after all. And there is no political will in either major political party to do anything remotely close to banning all guns.

Jacqueline Dowell

Grand Rapids

See the original post here:

The second amendment was about national security - Herald Review

Militia key to 2nd Amendment

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 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.

My dictionary defines militia as A citizen army as distinct from a body of professional soldiers. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency. The whole body of physically fit male civilians eligible by law for military service.

It seems logical that anyone has the right to bear arms; however, it should be to be part of a well-regulated militia. Gun owners, especially male civilians, should be required to register their arms so the government would know who it can call upon for service in an emergency. The government could then reimburse those called up for service for their expenses, such as ammunition expended.

Reference: American Heritage Dictionary

Read more:

Opinion/Letter: 'Militia' key to 2nd Amendment - The Daily Progress

Dave Hardy, an attorney in private practice in Arizona, thinks this is the term when the Supreme Court finally decides whether a constitutional right to carry a firearm extends beyond the front door.

Gun rights advocates like Hardy, whos been writing about the Second Amendment since the 1970s, have waited for years for the Supreme Court to hear a new challenge to a gun control law.

You dont do much work in the field, in terms of earning money, but its been something that interests me, Hardy said.

The wait has gone on since the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision, which established that the Second Amendment wasnt about arming militias. Instead, according to the court, it guarantees an individuals right to keep and bear arms. The only guarantee spelled out in that decision, authored by the late Antonin Scalia, was the right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense.

The decision explicitly left room for further regulation: Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, wrote Scalia. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

What the court has protected, and what it has prohibited

Existing prohibitions, such as those preventing felons from owning firearms or against carrying in certain places, were cleared by the court in the Heller decision. Two years later, the Supreme Court protected the individual right to keep and bear arms from state regulation in 2010 decision McDonald v. Chicago.

In the past decade, the court has refused to hear any challenges to appeals courts or state court rulings. These include a case that upheld a ban on assault weapons in a Chicago suburb, and Californias licensing and background check restrictions, among many others.

Sometimes youll see the Supreme Court rule and the circuit courts become very enthusiastic about the ruling. And then theyll expand it as far as they humanly can, said Hardy. Thats not how it has worked with the right to keep and bear arms. This is one where theyre decidedly reluctant. I dont know if I would say hostile, but decidedly reluctant to go one inch further than the Supreme Court is prepared to take them.

This has left gun rights advocates increasingly frustrated.

The New York case

The justices have accepted New York State Rifle and Pistol Associations appeal in its case against New York Citys law repealed in June prohibiting gun owners from carrying their firearms outside the home, except to designated gun ranges inside city limits.

Theres agreement among observers on both sides of the gun control debate that New Yorks law was unusually restrictive and the Supreme Court is likely to strike it down.

Arguments are scheduled for Dec. 2, but the court could still decide that, because city legislators repealed the law, the case is moot and dismiss it. The state also passed a law preventing similar regulations in the future.

There are signs that the court will let it go ahead. They could have dismissed it at any point since New York changed the law. Instead, the court required the city to file a brief in support of the law. And the case has found a spot on the calendar.

David Kopel, a legal scholar at the Cato Institute and a gun rights advocate, says the court should still address the law.

It was upheld by the Second Circuit, which said that banning people from taking their guns outside the city for target practice isnt even a Second Amendment issue. Kopel said. So theres still that precedent thats out there.

Kopel is one of the advocates whos been pressing the court for years to expand on Heller and McDonald and expand the right to carry a gun outside the home. In their view, lower courts have been too eager to uphold restrictions on gun ownership.

Politics vs. The Second Amendment

The New York case arrives at the Supreme Court at a time when the debate over gun control is near the top of the political agenda in many states and in Congress. On the federal level, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives has passed bills expanding background checks, banning high-capacity magazines and supporting red flag laws.

A new ban on military-style rifles is widely supported by the leading Democratic presidential candidates. None of these has been passed by the Senate or signed into law. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, has said he would introduce gun control measures for a vote in the Senate if they have the presidents support.

With all that in mind, attorneys for March For Our Lives, a youth-led movement founded in the aftermath of the mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida, filed a brief arguing the court should keep this movement in mind and not make too broad of a ruling on gun rights.

Theyre asking the court to leave enough flexibility in the review of regulations to let public opinion and political developments have a say, said Ira Feinberg, the lead counsel for March For Our Lives.

Feinberg added that, while the New York law is unusually restrictive, the issues at stake are much larger. The court, in an opinion striking down that law, could apply whats known as strict scrutiny to any regulation of gun rights. Strict scrutiny would require the government to make the case for why any regulation is necessary and would effectively guarantee public safety. That would likely lead to the overturning of the New York law.

To drive the point home, the March For Our Lives brief led with a series of anecdotes of people affected by gun violence.

The plea that we make in the brief is that the court should not adopt a standard like strict scrutiny, which would make it impossible to justify any regulations here, Feinberg said. Theres an urgent need for regulation.

Kopel argues thats exactly why the Constitution guarantees certain rights.

There have been times where there were at least seemingly public majorities that have been in favor of all kinds of censorship or abuse of religious or ethnic or racial minorities, said Kopel. And, yes, the Constitution closes off the discussion about that.

What the justices records mean

Since the Heller case was decided, Justices Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia have left the court. Scalias replacement, Justice Neal Gorsuch, did not write any opinions on gun control regulations before coming to the Supreme Court. Gorsuch did sign onto a dissent by Thomas in 2017 denying review of a California law restricting public carry.

Thomas wrote: The Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it.

And Kennedys replacement, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, is viewed as more hostile to gun regulations than his predecessor. In a 2011 dissent while on the D.C. Court of Appeals, Kavanaugh argued the government could not ban guns like the AR-15 because they were in common use and not historically banned.

He doesnt care about what effect any of these laws will have on public safety, said Allen Rostron, a law professor at the University of Missouri Kansas City and formerly a lawyer for Brady, a gun control advocacy organization.

[Kavanaugh] says that the right to keep and bear arms should be interpreted and applied based strictly on the text of the Second Amendment, the history of it and tradition, Rostron said.

According to Rostron, the court could choose to apply a level of review to government regulation that would make any gun control law impossible to defend.

If they said, We want proof, really compelling proof about what exactly this gun law would do and how it would improve safety, Rostron said, its very hard to prove it definitively one way or the other.

Coming up with standards for gun regulations

Rostron argues there are two areas the court still has to sort out: Just where does the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms apply? Precedent has established the right inside the home. How much of a right do citizens have to carry firearms outside the home?

The other core question: just how strong is the right to keep and bear arms? Who can be denied it and on what grounds? How many hoops can people be made to jump through before getting a firearm?

He says many existing restrictions, like on felons or people with domestic violence convictions owning firearms, are likely to be left in place. But licensing requirements might start getting a harder look.

Certainly the places in the country that have more restrictive requirements, more discretion with law enforcement and that sort of thing for gun licensing, would potentially be struck down, I think, Rostron said.

There are cases challenging New Jerseys licensing rules: Rogers v. Grewal, Cheeseman v. Polillo and Ciolek v. New Jersey that have all been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A Massachusetts case, Gould v. Morgan, challenging the licensing system in that state has also been appealed to the Supreme Court.

Gun rights and a history of discrimination

Nezida Davis, an Atlanta-based attorney for the National African American Gun Association, filed a brief asking the Supreme Court to rule against New York Citys law.

The brief points out a long history of prohibiting gun ownership among African Americans, going back to the days of slavery and continuing through the Jim Crow era. It argues that licensing systems, in which sheriffs decide who has the right to a license to carry, violate the Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection.

These types of restrictions, where government agencies decide whether you have the right to get a firearm, weve found that leads to discrimination, Davis said.

While theres widespread agreement that New Yorks law wont get the Supreme Courts approval, the big question everyone interested in the gun debate is waiting to learn is: How far are they going to go in striking it down?

Guns & America is a public media reporting project on the role of guns in American life.

See the original post here:

What's At Stake In The Guns Case At The Supreme Court? - KCUR

The three West Alabama hospitals of the DCH Health System on Tuesday are only accepting new patients in the most critical condition.

This comes as a result of the system experiencing a ransomware attack, according to a press release.

A criminal is limiting our ability to use our computer systems in exchange for an as-yet unknown payment, the release stated.

The hospitals affected are DCH Regional Medical Center in Tuscaloosa, Northport Medical Center and Fayette Medical Center.

344

Our hospitals have implemented our emergency procedures to ensure safe and efficient operations in the event technology dependent on computers is not available, the release outlined. That said, we feel it is in the best interest of patient safety that [the three hospitals] are closed to all but the most critical new patients.

Our staff is caring for the patients who are currently in the hospital, and we have no plans to transfer current patients, the release added.

Patients scheduled for an outpatient procedure or test at a DCH hospital should call before going to the facility.

Additionally, local ambulances have reportedly been instructed to take patients to other area hospitals if at all possible.

Patients who come to our emergency departments may be transferred to another hospital when they are stabilized, the release added. We are constantly evaluating our situation, and we will provide updates.

Reacting to the news on Tuesday, a high ranking member of the University of Alabama Student Government Association told Yellowhammer News, Students already are warned about DCH essentially the message I was told as an incoming freshman was, Dont go there. Its a disaster. Go to UAB or somewhere else in the Birmingham area if you can at all help it. That said, what were seeing today is shocking. If a health system is susceptible to a cyber attack at any time, how can I trust that place with my wellbeing?

Yellowhammer News also spoke with an economic development professional heavily involved in statewide site selection and recruitment work, including Tuscaloosa and West Alabama.

At the end of the day, areas with high-quality, reliable healthcare access have a big leg up, he said. In Tuscaloosa, a lot of things have been going right and theres significant room for more growth. However, when companies are looking at cities in other states, or even comparing, say, Birmingham and Tuscaloosa or Huntsville and Tuscaloosa, one big thing we hear is that Tuscaloosas healthcare system is a negative mark on their scorecard.

Sean Ross is the editor of Yellowhammer News. You can follow him on Twitter @sean_yhn

Read more here:

Pearl: 'Senator Tuberville said he's got Israel and the Second Amendment covered' (VIDEO) - Yellowhammer News

Post readers letters on various local, state and national topics.

Is the Second Amendment relevant in todays society? Does the Second Amendment only give us the right to own a firearm if we are a member of a well-regulated militia?

The United States has not had a militia for 150 years; should it be reinstated and all firearm owners, including myself, be required to be a member of a militia?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the National Guard does meet the requirements of a well-regulated militia, but reasonable gun control laws are constitutional. Everyone always quotes the second half of the Second Amendment but never the first half.

The reason I have asked the above questions is that there is no place you can go today and not think about a shooting. It is my opinion that we step back and have a reasonable discussion about firearms. When someone starts screaming that the Second Amendment gives him or her the right to own a gun, ask if they have read the entire Second Amendment and ask if they are a member of a well-regulated militia.

Nicholas Sacco, West Palm Beach

'Eyesore piles

could be of use

I live in the northern part of Palm Beach County. Each day I commute down A1A from Jupiter to Lake Park. The railroad tracks parallel the road and about every 100 yards or more there are piles of concrete ties that are quite an eyesore piled in groups of 15 or more.

My first thought was they should ship them to the Mexican border to help build the Trump wall. My second thought, after reading about how many people die crossing these railroad tracks in the south county area, would be to use them to build barriers in Boynton Beach and Delray Beach where people take short cuts across the tracks, and reduce the chances of people getting killed on the tracks.

It sure would make driving from Indiantown Road to Northlake a lot easier on the eye and make good use of the railroad ties.

Royce Emley, Tequesta

Zero interest rates

would hurt seniors

President Trump's repeated calls for the Federal Reserve to push interest rates down to zero demonstrate his lack of concern for the financial interests of retired people.

People who save part of their income during their working years and invest it in safe, fixed income assets like savings accounts, certificates of deposit, municipal bonds, treasury bonds and corporate bonds to provide income which supplements their Social Security benefits during their retirement years are financially devastated by falling interest rates.

Pushing interest rates down to zero would mean that retired people who live on the interest earned on these types of assets would earn no interest on the money they sacrificed so much to save during their working years.

In addition, it could negatively affect retirees living on fixed incomes by overstimulating the economy, causing inflationary price increases.

David Weissman, Delray Beach

Thank Trump for

crude-oil increases

Since President Trump came into office, American crude-oil production has increased by 3.65 million barrels per day. This is a leap of more than 40 percent. As a result, gasoline prices have come down.

These prices would have come down even more, but there have been voluntary production cuts by some of the world's largest producers, including Saudi Arabia. These foreign producer cuts were made for their own benefit to keep oil prices from falling even more.

As a result of the greater American energy independence, America is far less dependent on OPEC petroleum and the unstable Middle East oil producers. The recent attack on the Saudi petroleum facility had little effect on the price of gasoline in America.

President Trump deserves credit for his efforts in this regard.

Arthur Horn, Boca Raton

The Palm Beach Post is committed to publishing a diversity of opinion. Please send your views to letters@pbpost.com or by mail to Letters to the Editor, The Palm Beach Post, 2751 S. Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, FL 33405. Letters are subject to editing, must not exceed 200 words and must include your name, address and daytime phone number (we will publish only your name and city).

See original here:

Letters: Where's the militia in 2nd Amendment? - Opinion - Palm Beach Post

There are some venues you simply ought to avoid when talking about certain subjects. Beto O'Rourke found one such venue when reiterating his call for gun confiscation: Kent State University. Reasons Eric Bohm nails it, writing:

Kent State is, of course, the location of the infamous 1970 shooting that left four students dead and nine others injured. The shots were fired not by private citizens but by members of the Ohio National Guard, who shot at a crowd protesting Americas involvement in the Vietnam War.

Invoking armed agents of the state gunning down unarmed civilians is an interesting way to argue that Americans would be better off if the government forcefully disarmed private citizens. But hey, I guess thats why we keep being told Betos an unconventional candidate.

The Washington Examiners Becket Adams adds, If you are going to advocate for the forcible confiscation of an estimated 16 million rifles from lawful American citizens, it is probably best not to do it against the backdrop of one of the most famous incidents of unarmed citizens being shot to death by government forces.

Obviously, O'Rourkes proposal, if it involved actual door-to-door confiscation as it would need to for effectiveness, would be deadly. But ironically, that fact and Betos carelessness serve to highlight the most fundamental point of all when it comes to the Second Amendment: The Founders didnt write it to protect hunting, and its not even primarily about defending yourself against criminals. The Second Amendment is meant as a bulwark against government tyranny.

Democrats know that in order to truly carry out their tyrannical ideas of social justice, they must first confiscate the firearms of American citizens. But the British found out at Lexington and Concord and all the way to Yorktownthat Americans value our God-given Liberty far too much to succumb to confiscation, dressed up though it may be as buybacks.

More:

Beto, Kent State, and Why We Have a Second Amendment - Patriot Post

There are so many people complaining about the Second Amendment and how it is antiquated and should no longer apply because we dont live in the same world as it was when it was written. It was written because they knew firsthand what it was like to live under an oppressive government.

Also it has been said that the civilian population does not need military style weapons. Maybe they are right, but if our forefathers had not had weapons equal to the ones the British had, we would never have won our independence. Can you imagine what it would have been like to have fought them with bow and arrows instead of flintlocks like the British had? Our forefathers knew firsthand that if the population doesnt have the ability to defend itself against oppressors, we are at their mercy.

When a dictator comes to power, the first thing he does is disarm the population so they have no defense. When asked at the end of WWII of some of the surviving Japanese Naval and Air Force officers why they never considered invading the U.S, they said they knew that we had government-sponsored rifle matches, shotgun and pistol matches, and Americans were privately armed. They would have to attack an armed and trained civilian population, and there would be a gun behind every blade of grass.

We had all better pray that we never have to give up our guns. If we do, we are at the governments mercy, and we are doomed. No matter what laws are passed, bad people will always find a way to get around it. All the laws that were on the books at 9/11 didnt stop the hijackers who armed only with box cutters killed over 3,000 people and brought our country to its knees.

Originally posted here:

Why do we Have a Second Amendment? | Letters to the Editor - MDJOnline.com

We hope you can join us for the 2019 NRA-ILA Firearms Law & The Second Amendment Symposium that will be held Saturday, October 5th, in Virginia at the Doubletree Hilton Richmond-Midlothian.

Focusing on recent developments in our nations courts and legislatures regarding the Second Amendment, speakers will discuss a variety of topics among multiple panels. The Symposium will feature top Second Amendment attorneys covering topics that range from recent, critical court decisions, federal and state level updates, as well as critical legislative and political updates on defending and advancing gun owners' civil rights in Virginia.

Saturday, October 5, 20191021 Koger Center Blvd.North Chesterfield, VA 232359:30 a.m. 3:30 p.m. (Registration 9:30 a.m. - 9:45 a.m.)Lunch will be provided

This event promises to present a thought-provoking discussion of one of the most relevant and important freedoms in the Bill of Rights. Each registrant will receive valuable information including panelists written materials on their respective subjectsan excellent source for future reference. For guests who are attorneys, this years event may once again meet state requirements for continuing legal education. The event, including all materials and lunch, is free. RSVP is required above.

Please direct questions to Suzanne Anglewicz, sanglewicz@nrahq.org.

View post:

Join Us for the 2019 NRA-ILA Firearms Law & The Second Amendment Symposium Next Saturday October 5th - NRA ILA

The second spinoff of 'Black-ish', 'Mixed-ish' premiered last week. Narrated by the adult Bow Jackson (Tracee Ellis Ross), the show chronicles her childhood, beginning from when her family leaves a post-racial, utopian commune to live in the outside world with Bow's paternal grandfather, Harrison Jackson III (Gary Cole).

Bow's grandfather is everything her father Paul was against capitalism, guns, and more. When Harrison tries to bond with his grandkids, he gets them water guns.

The episode ends with a colorful montage of the family playing with the water guns and Santamonica holding hers up and yelling "I love the second amendment".

Yikes! At a time when entire shows are being pulled out and canceled without airing in the wake of mass shootings and when gun control forms a big part of social debate, these are questionable words that the writers have chosen to be uttered by a seven-year-old girl.

In fact, just a few days before the episode aired, non-profit organization Sandy Hook Promise (created in the wake of the shooting at the elementary school) released a PSA skit.

In the skit, kids talk about their back-to-school items which then shifts to them running and hiding for their lives with gunshots and screams heard in the background.

Mass shootings are not a 21st Century phenomena. The eighth deadliest mass shooting happened in 1984, just a year prior to the one in which 'Mixed-ish' is set a shooting at a McDonald's in San Diego that killed 21 people.

Two years after that, a shooting at a post office in Oklahoma killed 14 people. It was in the 80s that gun ownership was largely advocated as equating to freedom and in 1986, the Firearms Owners Protection Act passed.

The Act succeeded in enacting a largely self-enforcing, comparatively lax set of regulations that included the reintroduction of interstate sales of firearms and a reduction in the number of gun dealer inspections.

It also prohibited the government from keeping a national registry of gun owners. A schoolyard shooting in California in 1989 that killed five children then prompted the state to ban possession of semiautomatic assault weapons.

So yes, the show did take a misstep when they aired that scene a water gun fight scene without those words uttered would have been easy to do and the line seems quite out-of-touch for a show that wants to portray racial issues in the 80s. 'Mixed-ish' airs on Tuesday nights on ABC.

See the article here:

'Mixed-ish' miss the mark with its reference to the second amendment in the water gun scene - MEAWW

Why is it that when it comes to vaping, society is quick to try to ban it but they are not as quick when it comes to more necessary topics such as gun control?

Gun control reform has been a hot topic of discussion because of the rise of mass shootings in America. The nation has grown immune to the effects of these mass shootings as they become more frequent. People are getting used to hearing news stories about it, and this is not right. Letting people die and not taking action about it is wrong.

We, as a nation, are watching people die at the hands of gun violence, and yet, we hesitate to find a solution. We are unable to agree on stronger gun laws that will limit the access of firearms for the use of evil.

The most recent example of this evil is what transpired in El Paso, Texas. The shooting occurred at a Walmart back in August and resulted in over 20 deaths. The shooters goal was to kill as many Mexicans as he could, and it was recorded as one of the worst massacre(s) of Hispanic people in recent American history, according to The Texas Tribune. Yet, all the rifles used by the shooter were bought legally. The shooter was able to access guns from abroad and used them to carry out a horrific racist act.

Sadly, many people argue that gun control should not be as restrictive because of the Second Amendment. They believe that gun control reform directly impedes on the rights of an individual to bear arms.

It is important to know the historical context of this amendment, though. The phrasing of this amendment is very general, its meaning up to interpretation. In court, there is an ongoing argument over whether or not the amendment refers specifically to an individuals right to bear arms in self-defense or to the right of a state to have a well regulated militia. In United States v. Cruickshank in 1876, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment related directly to the state having a well-equipped militia. In recent cases though, such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court overruled a ban on individuals right to possess a handgun.

One should take notice, though, of how the era that the Second Amendment was created in is completely different than our own. It was during the Revolutionary War, back when people had to store their own weapons so they could act quickly and fight when needed.

But, currently, what are we fighting for that requires arms?

Our children and our innocents are dying at the hands of gun violence. According to CNN, there have been 22 school shootings since the start of this year through July. The numbers are following a pattern. No one feels safe.

The nation should be united in saving its people, not in protecting an amendment that was drafted to meet the necessities of a specific era. Laws have no value if they are not protecting us, and the Second Amendment is doing more harm than good. The politicians we put in power need to analyze the magnitude of our countrys gun violence.

Our current fight is with ignorance. Ignorance built out of protecting and following the Second Amendment blindly. Ignorance towards the horrific issue of mass shootings, especially in schools. Ignorance towards the deeper motivations behind shootings, like racism.

Our nation will not survive if evil is given a weapon to enact itself. The issue of gun violence in America runs deeper than we think, so stronger gun laws is a necessary step in order to attack the issues that motivate shootings. Stop gun violence. Stop people from getting shot because of their skin color. Stop acts of racism. Stop ending futures. It is time for America to act and save its civilians.

See the rest here:

Fighting ignorance with gun control reform - DU Clarion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See constitutional amendment.

Read the original here:

Second Amendment | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII ...

Below is the original text of the Second Amendment:

Having been oppressed by a professional army, the founding fathers of the United States had no use for establishing one of their own. Instead, they decided that an armed citizenry makes the best army of all. General George Washington created regulation for the aforementioned "well-regulated militia," which would consist of every able-bodied man in the country.

The Second Amendment holds the distinction of being the only amendment to the Bill of Rights that essentially goes unenforced. The U.S. Supreme Court has never struck down any piece of legislation on Second Amendment grounds, in part because justices have disagreed on whether the amendment is intended to protect the right to bear arms as an individual right, or as a component of the "well-regulated militia."

There are three predominant interpretations of the Second Amendment.

The only Supreme Court ruling in U.S. history that has focused primarily on the issue of what the Second Amendment really means is U.S. v. Miller (1939), which is also the last time the Court examined the amendment in any serious way. In Miller, the Court affirmed a median interpretation holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, but only if the arms in question are those that would be useful as part of a citizen militia. Or maybe not; interpretations vary, partly because Miller is not an exceptionally well-written ruling.

In Parker v. District of Columbia (March 2007), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban on grounds that it violates the Second Amendment's guarantee of an individual right to bear arms. The case is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, which may soon address the meaning of the Second Amendment. Almost any standard would be an improvement over Miller.

Read more:

Second Amendment Text, Origins, and Meaning - ThoughtCo

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Sanctuary cities arent just for immigrants anymore.

A growing number of states, counties, cities, and towns are declaring themselves Second Amendment Sanctuaries and are refusing to enforce gun-control laws that infringe on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

While adopting ordinances and resolutions to defy gun laws isnt a new tactic, momentum is rapidly building likely in response to increasing calls for more gun control at state and federal levels.

Sanctuary counties and towns are passing resolutions that state no funding will be used to enforce unconstitutional laws and that the sheriff will uphold his oath to the Constitution instead of enforcing laws that violate the Second Amendment.

County sheriffs are, legally speaking, the last line of defense in the battle for gun rights:

Federal agencies do not have state powers. Due to the Constitutions structure of dual sovereignty, the feds have no authority to enforce state laws. Furthermore, states cannot be compelled to enforce federal laws. (source)

Heres a rundown of the states with jurisdictions that have adopted Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions.

Colorado

In Colorado, 23 out of 64 counties have adopted Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions, and others are considering implementing similar resolutions. Legislators and sheriffs in the state are pushing back against House Bill 19-1177, a red flag bill that will likely become law soon. For a full analysis and critique of this bill, give this a read: Kopel and Greenlee: Plenty of red flags in Colorados extreme risk protection order bill.

Officially called Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO), red flag laws permit police, healthcare providers, or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves.

Weld County recently joined the growing list of counties in Colorado that have passed Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions in response to the impending red flag law.

Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer, one of HB 19-1177s harshest critics, said The severity of this bill cannot be overstated. The name of this bill is the Extreme Risk Protection Orders. I think thats a faade, and I think its fraudulent. I think actually, this bill should have been titled: The Extreme Order to Confiscate Your Firearms, Eliminate Due Process, and Violate your Constitutional Rights Bill.

Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams agrees:

The bill is so riddled with constitutional problems that it makes it hard to understand how professional lawmakers could have constructed something so terrible, Reams said, adding the bill, raises some serious concerns about due process, in that a person can have their guns taken away and their rights violated, all without ever having a chance to appear in an initial court hearing and cross examine accusers and witnesses in person. In legal terms, this is an exparte hearing. (source)

Reams added that one of the biggest problems with the law is it does not address actual mental health issues it only allows for guns to be taken away, leaving the person in the same position and without medical help.

Illinois

To date, 63 out of 102 counties or municipalities in Illinois have adopted Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions, and more are expected.

Maryland

To date, 3 out of 23 counties have adopted Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions.

Nevada

Sheriffs in Nye County and Eureka County have said they oppose new gun laws in the state and will not enforce them.

Nye County Sheriff Sharon Wehrly and Sheriff Jesse Watts of Eureka County both wrote separate letters to Sisolak and Attorney General Aaron Ford expressing their opposition to the law.

In Germany prior to WWII, we saw Hitler place restrictions on the publics right to bear arms, Wehrly said in his letter. I agree with Sheriff Watts. I will not participate in the enforcement of this new law and certainly wont stand silent.

Watts wrote in his letter that he would not stand by while citizens are turned into criminals due to the unconstitutional actions of misguided politicians. (source)

Elko County may soon join Nye and Eureka commissioners there plan to vote on a resolution to become a Second Amendment sanctuary county at a meeting on March 20.

New Mexico

When New Mexicos new Democratic governor, Michelle Lujan Grisham, was sworn into office on January 1, Democrats in the state rushed to expand gun control. Those bills were met with opposition from most ofNew Mexicos sheriffs:

Of the 33 sheriffs in the state, 29 have voiced disapproval of the package of anti-gun legislation by issuing a declaration through the state sheriffs association, stating that the rush to react to the violence by proposing controls on guns is ill-conceived and is truly a distraction to the real problems proliferating violence in our counties and our state. (source)

New York

After the NY SAFE Act was passed in 2013, some New York counties passed resolutions in opposition. There are currently 52 out of 62 counties with such resolutions, and the New York State Sheriffs Association sued to block the law.

North Carolina

Just days ago, a county in North Carolina joined the resistance:

Cherokee County passed the three-page resolution with a slim 3-2 vote, after resolution authorDan Eichenbaum told fellow commissioners that the first thing dictators dois confiscate guns, reported the Cherokee Scout.

Amongthe provisions is a warning that Cherokee County will not authorize or appropriate government funds, resources, employees, agencies, contractors, buildings, detention centers or offices for the purpose of enforcinglaws, orders, mandates, rules or regulations that infringe on the right by the people to keep and bear arms. (source)

Oregon

Of the 36 counties in the state, 13 have adopted Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions, and there are surely more to come, according to a recent report by Reuters:

Organizers in Oregon plan to put even more defiant sanctuary ordinance measures on county ballots in 2020 that will direct their officials to resist state gun laws.

Washington

In late January, the state of Washington made the news when several sheriffs in the state publicly vowed not to enforce the new unconstitutional gun laws that were passed in November. As of February 2019, the sheriffs of more than a dozen of the states 39 counties have publicly stated they will not enforce the law, though some said they will only refuse to do so until the final adjudication of pending lawsuits against the legislation.

Three states have passed bills to protect 2A rights at the state level.

Alaska

In 2013, Alaska passed HB 69, which declares certain gun control measures to be unconstitutional, and made it unlawful for any state assets to go toward the enforcement of federal gun laws:

It declares that guns and ammunition possessed by Alaskans are exempt from federal gun laws. It also subjects federal agents to felony charges if they try to enforce any future federal ban on semi-automatic weapons or ammunition or enforce any new federal requirement for gun registration.

***

Republicans said they are willing to let the courts sort out the issues. They said that they must stand up for Second Amendment gun rights and wont bow down to the federal government on this. A number said they heard from constituents who back the bill.

Some Democrats argued that the measure puts Alaskans at risk of criminal prosecution if they ignore federal gun laws. While the bill allows the state to defend Alaskans charged with violating a federal gun law, theres no guarantee of that help or any sign the federal government will back off. (source)

Idaho

On March 14, 2014, Idaho Governor Butch Otter signed a bill prohibiting state enforcement of any future federal act relating to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition effectively nullifying future federal gun laws.

Erich Pratt, Director of Communications for Gun Owners of America, cheered the governors action. By signing this nullification bill into law, Idaho has joined an elite class of states that are telling the feds to get lost especially when it comes to unconstitutional gun control infringements.

***

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, also advised this very tactic. Madison supplied theblueprint for resisting federal power in Federalist 46. He outlined several steps that states can take to effective stop an unwarrantable measure, or even a warrantable measure of the federal government. Madison called for refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union as a way to successfully thwart federal acts. (source)

Kansas

In 2013, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed Senate Bill 102, also known as the Second Amendment Protection Act, into law. Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center called the law the most comprehensive nullification of such acts thus far:

The new law nullifies a wide range of federal attacks on the right to keep and bear arms in the State of Kansas. It states, in part:

Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas

In conjunction with Section 6a (quoted above), the bill defines what is meant by the second amendment to the constitution of the United States, and that it isnt based off a decision of the supreme court.

The second amendment to the constitution of the United States reserves to the people, individually, the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Kansas was admitted to statehood in 1861, and the guaranty of that right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Kansas and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Kansas in 1859 and the United States in 1861. (source)

Do you believe they will protect the rights of gun owners? Or, do you think the government will ultimately find ways to confiscate guns anyway? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

About the Author

Dagny Taggart is the pseudonym of an experienced journalist who needs to maintain anonymity to keep her job in the public eye. Dagny is non-partisan and aims to expose the half-truths, misrepresentations, and blatant lies of the MSM.

Originally posted here:

Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities, Counties, & STATES

A Guide to the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment, or Amendment II, of the United States Constitution is the amendment and the section of the Bill of Rights that says that people have the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment was adopted into the United States Constitution on December 15, 1791, along with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights were introduced into the United States Constitution by James Madison.

The Text of the Second Amendment

There are two important versions of the text found in the Second Amendment, but the only differences are due to punctuation and capitalization. The text of the Second Amendment which is found in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the following:

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.

What Does the Second Amendment Mean?

The Second Amendment is only a sentence long. However, there are some very important phrases that need to be carefully looked at. Here are some explanations for key phrases in the Second Amendment.

Militia: During early American history, all males who were between the ages of sixteen to sixty were required to be a part of the local militia in their towns and communities. Almost everyone during this time used and owned guns. The few men who did not use or own a gun were required by law to pay a small fee instead of participating in the military services of their communities. These militias defended the communities against Indian raids and revolved, acted as a police force when it was needed, and was also available to be called upon to defense either the State or of the United States of America if it was needed.

Bear arms: When the Second Amendment was written, arms meant weapons. The word arms did not necessarily only mean guns, but it definitely included guns. The Second Amendment did not specifically explain what categories or types of arms nor did it list what weapons were considered arms. When you bear arms, this means you physically carry weapon. You may have arms in your home as well as on your person.

Shall not be infringed: The Second Amendment does not grant any right to bear arms. Furthermore, the rest of the Bill of Rights does not describe any right to do so. These rights are thought of as natural rights or God-given rights. In the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment is just a reminder to the government that they should not try to stop people from having this right.

comments

Read the original here:

Second Amendment - Kids | Laws.com

Thegovernor of New Mexico took to Twitter on Tuesday and criticized a wave of"Second Amendment Sanctuary" resolutions passed bycounties across the state.

More than half of the state's33 counties have passedresolutions in opposition to a series of what they calledgun control bills being considered by the state Legislature. Such sanctuary resolutions often say sheriffs should not have to enforce measures they consider unconstitutional. Officials have said the resolutions are symbolic in nature.

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat,criticized the movement in a series of Tweets: "A few law enforcement officers in this state have been making noise about how they wont enforce gun safety measures because they dont like them. Thats not how laws work, of course, and its not how oaths of office work either."

Grisham wrote she would continue to advocate for gun reforms, despite"NRA propaganda, rogue sheriffs throwing a childish pity party or bad-faith critics."

Opponents of the legislation specifically a bill that wouldexpand background checks on gun sales have said it wouldviolate the Second Amendment by requiring the creation of a statewide gun registry to facilitate background checks.

Feb. 28: U.S. House passes bill extending time for background checks for guns

Feb. 25: Dick's Sporting Goods CEO Ed Stack still takes tough stance on guns a year after Parkland

"I take an oath to uphold the constitution, and I enforce all lawful laws that do not infringe on my constitutional rights, Mike Herrington, Chaves County Sheriff, told the USA TODAY Network.

Grisham disputed that position in her comments: "Background checks are constitutional. Courts have repeatedly upheld that. Its not debatable."

New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham shown in this Tuesday, Jan. 29, 2019 file photo criticized a wave of"Second Amendment Sanctuary" resolutions passed bycounties across the state.(Photo: Morgan Lee, AP)

House Minority Leader Jim Townsend, R-Artesia,said Grisham's comments incorrectly minimized the opposition to the legislation:Thousands across New Mexico are filling county commission meetings to stand against her bills, I guess theyre rogue too."

Among the gun bills advancing through the legislature:

Grisham made national headlines in early February for her stance against President Donald Trump's assertion that there is a national security crisis at the southern border with Mexico. Shewithdrew the majority of National Guard troopsdeployed at the state's southern border on Feb. 5.

Contributing: Jessica Onsurez, Carlsbad Current-Argus;The Associated Press

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/28/new-mexico-governor-criticizes-second-amendment-sanctuary-movement/3022175002/

Continue reading here:

'Second Amendment Sanctuary' movement called a 'childish pity ...

The second amendment has become a badge and bumper sticker, a shield for gun activists and scripture for much of the American right. But like other cherished texts, it is not as clear as many make it out to be.

The amendment reads: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

For most of the republics lifespan, from 1791 to 2008, those commas and clauses were debated by attorneys and senators, slave owners and freedmen, judges, Black Panthers, governors and lobbyists. For some, the militia was key; for others the right that shall not be infringed; for yet others, the question of states versus the federal government. For the most part, the supreme court stayed out it.

Americans have been thinking about the second amendment as an individual right for generations, said Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA and author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. You can find state supreme courts in the mid-1800s where judges say the second amendment protects an individual right.

But for the 70 years or so before a supreme court decision in 2008, he said, the supreme court and federal courts held that it only applied in the context of militias, the right of states to protect themselves from federal interference.

In 2008, the supreme court decided the District of Columbia v Heller, 5-4 , overturning a handgun ban in the city. The conservative justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion in narrow but unprecedented terms: for the first time in the countrys history, the supreme court explicitly affirmed an individuals right to keep a weapon at home for self-defense.

Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, saying the decision showed disrespect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on the court, and for the rule of law itself. Two years later, he dissented from another decision favoring gun rights, writing:

The reasons that motivated the framers to protect the ability of militiamen to keep muskets, or that motivated the Reconstruction Congress to extend full citizenship to freedmen in the wake of the Civil War, have only a limited bearing on the question that confronts the homeowner in a crime-infested metropolis today.

This fight over history, waged by supreme court justices and unlikely allies and foes, goes all the way back.

People look at the same record and come to wildly different conclusions about what the view was in the 18th century, in the 19th century, said Nicholas Johnson, a Fordham University law professor who argues against Winklers view of 20th-century case law.

Attempts to parse original intent go all the way back to the revolution and its aftermath, when the countrys founders bickered about what exactly they were talking about. Carl Bogus, a law professor at Roger Williams University, has argued that James Madison wrote the second amendment in part to reassure his home state of Virginia, where slave owners were terrified of revolts and wary of northerners who would undermine the system.

The militia were at that stage almost exclusively a slave-control tool in the south, he said. You gave Congress the power to arm the militia if Congress chooses not to arm our militia, well, we all know what happens.

The federalist Madisons compromise, according to Bogus, was to promise a bill of rights. After weeks of tense debate, his federalists narrowly won the vote to ratify the constitution. He writes an amendment that gives the states the right to have an armed militia, by the people arming themselves.

A year later, the federal government passed a law requiring every man eligible for his local militia to acquire a gun and register with authorities. (The law was only changed in 1903.)

After the civil war, second amendment rights were again debated by Congress, which abolished militias in the former Confederate states and passed the 1866 Civil Rights Act, explicitly protecting freed slaves right to bear arms. A century later, the founders of the Black Panthers took up guns, symbolically and literally, to press for equal civil rights in California.

The states conservative lawmakers promptly took up the cause of gun control. In 1967, Governor Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act, banning the public carry of loaded guns in cities. The governor said he saw no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.

Reagan later supported the Brady Act, a gun control law named after his aide, who was shot during an assassination attempt on Reagan in Washington DC. The National Rifle Association supported the Mulford Act but opposed the Brady Act, signed into law 26 years later.

Winkler, the UCLA professor, said that during the 1970s, a revolt among the membership profoundly altered the NRA overnight. Since the 1930s, the group had supported restrictions on machine guns and public carry, but angry hardliners took control over the organization in 1977, when moderates wanted to retreat from lobbying work. The group then began a decades-long campaign to popularize its uncompromising positions.

The NRA goes far beyond what the second amendment requires people walking around with permits, on college campuses, Winkler said. Their argument is its a fundamental right and freedom. People care more about values than they care about policy.

In the late 1990s, several prominent liberal attorneys, such as Laurence Tribe and Akhil Reed Amar, also argued for an individual right while advocating gun regulation. Gun control activists say they have not changed tack since the supreme courts 2008 decision. Scalia wrote a narrow opinion and listed several exceptions, such as bans on unusual and dangerous weapons and sales to domestic abusers and people with mental illness. He also wrote that states and cities could ban firearms from places like government buildings.

Lower courts have upheld many gun laws around the country since 2008, and the supreme court has declined to hear any second amendment cases since 2010. Attorneys and activists on both sides expect a looming fight over the right to carry guns in public, which the Heller decision does not address.

The courts generally strike a balance between the need for lawmakers to protect public safety and this notion of second amendment rights, said Avery Gardiner, co-president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. The Heller decision, she said, was entirely consistent with gun laws like background checks.

Theres a mythology here that the supreme court has said something about the second amendment that it hasnt, she said. I think most Americans dont like reading the footnotes.

See more here:

The right to bear arms: what does the second amendment really ...

Created on December 15, 1791, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that establishes the right of citizens to possess firearms for lawful purposes.[a] It says, "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."[2]

When America was being colonized by European countries, firearms were very important to colonists.[3] When Europeans came to America, they brought with them the idea of land ownership by an individual.[4] They received this right from their king through land grants.[4] This was completely foreign to Native Americans who considered a particular territory belonged to the tribe.[4] Colonists defended their claims against Native Americans and other Europeans whose kings may have granted them the same lands.[3] They also needed firearms for hunting. In many towns and villages, men were required to own firearms for the defense of the community. Most colonists coming to America in the 17th century had no experience as soldiers.[5] The British kept few soldiers in the colonies, and colonists soon found they needed to establish militias.[5]

Colonies had militia laws that required every able-bodied white man to be available for militia duty and to provide his own arms.[5] In 1774 and 1775, the British government, which now had a larger presence, attempted to disarm American colonists. This caused the colonists to form private militias, independent of any control by the governors appointed by the British government.[5] The Minutemen who fought the British Army at the Battles of Lexington and Concord were an independent militia.[5]

After the American Revolutionary War, the framers of the Constitution, like most Americans of the time, distrusted standing (permanent) armies and trusted militias.[5] After the Revolutionary War, Americans trusted state militias to defend the country. The Articles of Confederation, the new nation's first constitution, called for each state to maintain a well-armed militia. Congress could call up the militias to defend the country against any foreign power. However, Congress could only form a standing army if nine of the thirteen states approved. This was one of the weaknesses that led to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and a new constitution.

In the 18th century, the word "army" meant mercenaries.[5] Americans distrusted standing armies and were afraid they could be used to take over the country.[6] People still remembered Oliver Cromwell and his military dictatorship in England.[6]

Virginia was one of the first colonies to adopt a state constitution. They included the words: "a well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State."[3] Other states followed with similar wording in their own constitutions. Pennsylvania declared: "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."[3]

In 1781 the Continental Congress approved the Articles of Confederation. This recognized that the thirteen original states had the power to govern themselves. They acted collectively to have a congress, but did not provide any money to run it. There was no president and no court system. This confederation of states proved to be a very poor form of central government.

The Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania from May 25 to September 17, 1787.[7] The purpose of the Convention was to revise the Articles of Confederation. But it became clear that many of its members, including James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, wanted to create a new government rather than fix the existing one. The delegates elected George Washington to preside over the Convention. They eventually agreed on agreed on Madison's Virginia Plan and began to make changes. The result was the Constitution of the United States and the present form of government.[7]

The constitution debate at Philadelphia caused two groups to form: the Federalists and the Anti-federalists. The federalists wanted a strong central government. The anti-federalists wanted the state governments to have more power. The vote on the new Constitution was passed on a promise by federalists to support a Bill of Rights to be added to the Constitution.[8]

Originally, Congress suggested 12 amendments to the states. However, the states only ratified ten. The Bill of Rights, as the first 10 amendments came to be called, originally applied to the national government rather than to states.[8] Many states already had their own Bill of Rights.[8] The Bill of Rights was ratified and went into effect in 1791.

The Second Amendment was a result of several proposals being combined and simplified into just 27 words.[9] This simplification has caused many debates over gun ownership and individual rights. Historians, judges and others have repeatedly looked for the intended meaning by the 18th century writers of this amendment. [9] Different interpretations of the Second Amendment still cause public debates about firearm regulations and gun control.[9]

In 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard a case called Heller v. District of Columbia. At the time, it was illegal for regular Americans to have a gun in Washington, D.C. To decide whether this was against the Second Amendment, the court looked very closely at capitalization and punctuation in the Amendment to try to figure out exactly what the framers meant.

Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the Court's decision.[10] It made the ban on guns by the District of Columbia invalid.[10] The decision was based on the second comma (after the word "state") as proof that the Second Amendment allows individuals the right to carry a gun.[10] This is in addition to state's rights to maintain militias.[10]

The Second Amendment ratified by the States and approved by the Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, said:

The version passed by Congress and signed by President George Washington (but never ratified by the States) said:

On June 25, 2008, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals' decision.[2] (In the Supreme Court, the case was called District of Columbia v. Heller.)

More:

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Simple ...

Related Articles & Sections within the first State Constitutions Adopted after May 10, 1776.

On May 10, 1776, Congress passed a resolution recommending that any colony with a government that was not inclined toward independence should form one that was.[1]

Virginias Constitution lists the reasons for dissolving its ties with the King in the formation of its own independent state government. Including the following:

Article 13. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.[3]

IMPORTANT NOTE: This is the first instance of the phrase "right to bear arms." It is of relevance that Pennsylvania was a Quaker Colony. "In settling Pennsylvania, William Penn had a great experiment in view, a holy experiment, as he term[ed] it. This was no less than to test, on a scale of considerable magnitude, the practicability of founding and governing a State on the sure principles of the Christian religion; where the executive should be sustained without arms; where justice should be administered without oaths; and where real religion might flourish without the incubus of a hierarchical system."[4] The Non-Quaker residents, many from the Western Counties, complained often and loudly of being denied the right to a common defense. By the time of the American Revolution, through what could be described as a revolution within a revolution, the pro-militia factions had gained ascendancy in the state's government. And by a manipulation through the use of oaths, disqualifying Quaker members, they made up a vast majority of the convention forming the new state constitution; it was only natural that they would assert their efforts to form a compulsory State Militia in the context of a "right" to defend themselves and the state.[5]

Articles XXV-XXVII. 25. That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government. 26. That standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept up, without consent of the Legislature. 27. That in all cases, and at all times, the military ought to be under strict subordination to and control of the civil power.[6]

A Declaration of Rights. Article XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.[7]

Article XL. And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times hereafter, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service. That all such of the inhabitants of this State being of the people called Quakers as, from scruples of conscience, may be averse to the bearing of arms, be therefrom excused by the legislature; and do pay to the State such sums of money, in lieu of their personal service, as the same; may, in the judgment of the legislature, be worth. And that a proper magazine of warlike stores, proportionate to the number of inhabitants, be, forever hereafter, at the expense of this State, and by acts of the legislature, established, maintained, and continued in every county in this State.[8]

Chapter 1. Section XVIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.[9]

A Declaration of Rights. Chapter 1. Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.[10]

Read this article:

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikiquote

I teach the Constitution for a living. I revere the document when it is used to further social justice and make our country a more inclusive one. I admire the Founders for establishing a representative democracy that has survived for over two centuries.

But sometimes we just have to acknowledge that the Founders and the Constitution are wrong. This is one of those times. We need to say loud and clear: The Second Amendment must be repealed.

As much as we have a culture of reverence for the founding generation, its important to understand that they got it wrong and got it wrong often. Unfortunately, in many instances, they enshrined those faults in the Constitution. For instance, most people dont know it now, but under the original document, Mitt Romney would be serving as President Obamas vice president right now because he was the runner-up in the last presidential election. That part of the Constitution was fixed by the Twelfth Amendment, which set up the system we currently have of the president and vice president running for office together.

Much more profoundly, the Framers and the Constitution were wildly wrong on race. They enshrined slavery into the Constitution in multiple ways, including taking the extreme step of prohibiting the Constitution from being amended to stop the slave trade in the countrys first 20years. They also blatantly wrote racism into the Constitution by counting slaves as only 3/5 of a person for purposes of Congressional representation. It took a bloody civil war to fix these constitutional flaws (and then another 150 years, and counting, to try to fix the societal consequences of them).

There are others flaws that have been fixed (such as about voting and Presidential succession), and still other flaws that have not yet been fixed (such as about equal rights for women and land-based representation in the Senate), but the point is the same there is absolutely nothing permanently sacrosanct about the Founders and the Constitution. They were deeply flawed people, it was and is a flawed document, and when we think about how to make our country a more perfect union, we must operate with those principles in mind.

In the face of yet another mass shooting, now is the time to acknowledge a profound but obvious truth the Second Amendment is wrong for this country and needs to be jettisoned. We can do that through a Constitutional amendment. Its been done before (when the Twenty-First Amendment repealed prohibition in the Eighteenth), and it must be done now.

The Second Amendment needs to be repealed because it is outdated, a threat to liberty and a suicide pact. When the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, there were no weapons remotely like the AR-15assault rifle and many of the advances of modern weaponry were long from being invented or popularized.

Sure, the Founders knew that the world evolved and that technology changed, but the weapons of today that are easily accessible are vastly different than anything that existed in 1791. When the Second Amendment was written, the Founders didnt have to weigh the risks of one man killing 49and injuring 53 all by himself. Now we do, and the risk-benefit analysis of 1791 is flatly irrelevant to the risk-benefit analysis of today.

Gun-rights advocates like to make this all about liberty, insisting that their freedom to bear arms is of utmost importance and that restricting their freedom would be a violation of basic rights.

But liberty is not a one way street. It also includes the liberty to enjoy a night out with friends, loving who you want to love, dancing how you want to dance, in a club that has historically provided a refuge from the hate and fear that surrounds you. It also includes the liberty to go to and send your kids to kindergarten and first grade so that they can begin to be infused with a love of learning. It includes the liberty to go to a movie, to your religious house of worship, to college, to work, to an abortion clinic, go to a hair salon, to a community center, to the supermarket, to go anywhere and feel that you are free to do to so without having to weigh the risk of being gunned downby someone wielding a weapon that can easily kill you and countless others.

The liberty of some to own guns cannot take precedence over the liberty of everyone to live their lives free from the risk of being easily murdered. It has for too long, and we must now say no more.

Finally, if we take the gun-rights lobby at their word, the Second Amendment is a suicide pact. As they say over and over, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. In other words, please the gun manufacturers by arming even the vast majority of Americans who do not own a gun.

Just think of what would have happened in the Orlando night-club Saturday night if there had been many others armed. In a crowded, dark, loud dance club, after the shooter began firing, imagine if others took out their guns and started firing back. Yes, maybe they would have killed the shooter, but how would anyone else have known what exactly was going on? How would it not have devolved into mass confusion and fear followed by a large-scale shootout without anyone knowing who was the good guy with a gun, who was the bad guy with a gun, and who was just caught in the middle? The death toll could have been much higher if more people were armed.

The gun-rights lobbys mantra that more people need guns will lead to an obvious result more people will be killed. Wed be walking down a road in which blood baths are a common occurrence, all because the Second Amendment allows them to be.

At this point, bickering about the niceties of textual interpretation, whether the history of the amendment supports this view or that, and how legislators can solve this problem within the confines of the constitution is useless drivel that will lead to more of the same. We need a mass movement of those who are fed up with the long-dead Founders view of the world ruling current day politics. A mass movement of those who will stand up and say that our founding document was wrong and needs to be changed. A mass movement of those who will thumb their nose at the NRA, an organization that is nothing more than the political wing of the countrys gun manufacturers, and say enough is enough.

The Second Amendment must be repealed, and it is the essence of American democracy to say so.

Watch four pro-gun arguments were sick of hearing.

More:

Why Its Time to Repeal the Second Amendment Rolling Stone