If youve heard of Brazilian jiu-jitsu, mixed-martial arts or the UFC, the reason is Royce Gracie. In the early 1990s, his dominance of the octagon brought his familys style of jiu-jitsu into the American mainstream, and the martial art has become immensely popular around the world ever since. In addition to his hand-to-hand combat skills, Gracie is also a fan of firearms and the Second Amendment. Shooting Illustrated Editor-in-Chief Ed Friedman sat down with Gracie to discuss his career, his love of freedom and his interest in guns.

SI: How did you get interested in firearms?

Royce Gracie: Growing up in Brazil, my dad had a few guns on our farm. Its part of martial arts. Sure, they say its empty hands, but so many styles use weapons, so its part of the martial arts culture. When I came to America and saw the freedom that we have, I was blown away. Back in the early days, we had a friend who would take us to the range, and wed shoot 100 rounds through a .45 ACP 1911. Our goal was to make the bullseye disappear, and I got the shooting bug. Shooting is an art. You need to know what youre doing, how to be safe, to recognize the skill needed to control that power. Its a lot like martial arts in that way.

SI: What makes someone who is so skilled in unarmed self-defense feel the need to own firearms?

Royce Gracie: What if theres more than one person? What if the adversary is armed? If its just one guy whos not armed, yeah, I can take care of him. But what if he pulls a gun? What if theres more than one attacker and they have knives? What happens if theres a terrorist attack? Ive got a mentality that Im going to try to stop an attack no matter what, but if hes got a gun, thats suicidal if Im not armed. Also, if a criminal is attacking other people, its not always feasible for even someone with my skills to stop that attack without a firearm.

Attackers arent going to make it a fair fight. They launch surprise assaults; they try to take you out to get to your family or your property. Its not the octagon. Theres no referee. And if he pulls a weapon, hes not just trying to fight mehes trying to kill me. At that point, youd be crazy to try to go hand to hand. I have a gun to defend myself if the situation escalates like that.

SI: Tell me a little about the situation in Brazil as it pertains to gun ownership and crime.

Royce Gracie: Brazil never had the degree of freedom we have in the U.S., but you used to be able to buy some guns. There were restrictions, but there were shops we could go to. Then, they essentially banned civilian ownership guns in what they said was an effort to fight crime. That resulted in the criminals arming themselves to the teeth. I mean, they had RPGs and machine guns. They get it from corrupt officials. Violence got out of control after that. It was like the law switched to protect the bad guys. So at the same time they disarmed the law-abiding citizens, they made life easier on the criminals. The murder rate went through the roof. Its so bad, the prisoners in jails get better food than the police!

SI: Why do people sign up for your classes? What is it about Brazilian jiu-jitsu that is so popular?

Royce Gracie: The main reason people go to any martial arts school is to gain confidence by learning skills. They may have had something happen to them or seen a situation that they didnt know how to react to. That stays with themthey dont go right away to learn about self-defense, but that thought stays filed away. Then one day a friend will say Hey, Im learning this martial art; lets go check it out. Then they go to class and start to get the hang of it. Its a lot of the same reasons why people buy a gun for the first time. People realize theyre vulnerable, but it often takes a while. Its not like they see a fight and say, I need to learn a martial art, but a while later that thought comes to the front and they sign up for a class. Its really all about the skills you need to be confident. Parents sign their kids up for the same reason; for the confidence that can come with the discipline that martial arts provide.

SI: What can people expect to learn in a Royce Gracie-taught class?

Royce Gracie: I teach them self-defense. I dont teach competition. Martial arts were made to defend yourself. A lot of schools teach you how to score points, but thats not real life. Competition can ruin a martial art. I teach how to defend yourself in a street-fight situation. Why do you buy a gun? Sure, there are a small number of people who want to be the best competitive shooter in the world, but for most of us, its for self-defense. And maybe that leads to competition, which is fine, but thats not why you signed up for a martial arts class or why you bought that first gun.

SI: What drew you to the NRA? How important is the Second Amendment to you?

Royce Gracie: TheNational Rifle Associationis the front line of keeping my right to keep and bear arms. Thats the way I look at it. I really respect the NRA, because I know from experience, from what happened to Brazil, how important the Second Amendment is. It is my right to defend myself, and the NRA makes sure that right will be there. Look what happened when they took those rights away in Brazil, in Venezuelait is vital to keep that right.

Want to take a class with Royce Gracie? VisitNRACarryGuardExpo.comtoday to sign up for the (limited-space) Brazilian jiu-jitsu class he will teach at the inaugural Carry Guard Expo in Milwaukee, WI, Aug. 25 to 27. Gracie will teach paying attendees several moves that could come in handy should you find yourself in a close-quarters criminal attack. He will also be signing autographs at the show. In addition, there will be seminars from world-class instructors like Steve Tarani, Travis Doc T and many others, so you wont want to miss the best event for those interested in self-defense.

Here is the original post:

MMA Legend Royce Gracie On The Second Amendment - The Daily Caller

Congressman Chris Collins (R, NY-24) said Monday he will introduce a bill to repeal the portions of the SAFE Act which most impact sportsmen and women. (WHAM photo)

Honeoye Falls, N.Y. (WHAM) - Opponents of New York state's controversial SAFE Act are turning to Congress for help.

Congressman Chris Collins (R, NY-24) said he will introduce a bill to repeal the portions of the SAFE Act which most impact sportsmen and women.

The SAFE Act - which became law in 2013 - lumps the shotguns and rifles used by hunters and sportsmen in with all handguns, including those Governor Cuomo called assault weapons.

"This is the first time I can remember any legislation that was more harmful to law-abiding citizens - legally - than it is to criminals," said Tim Andrews of SCOPE.

"Governor, you are on notice. We are going to repeal and declare, null-and-void, your SAFE Act," Collins told a cheering crowd at Rochester Brooks Gun Club in Honeoye Falls.

On Monday afternoon, Collins unveiled the bill, which he refers to as SAGA - the Second Amendment Guarantee Act.

"Knowing the members as I do, we will have overwhelming support on this bill," Collins said while visiting the Rochester Brooks Gun Club. "Certainly, the minute they find out that the NRA and SCOPE may well be scoring this related to their Congressional score card, we'll get universal support."

SAGA seeks to limit a state's ability to regulate or impose penalties on rifles and shotguns. For example, the SAFE Act Provision limiting rifles to 10 rounds would be replaced with federal standards which currently do not have a limit. Yet it will have no impact on magazine restrictions for handguns.

"It's a good start and better than trying to wait for the whole enchilada," said Gary Zelinski of Canandaigua. "You've got to do something at this point."

New York courts have upheld the SAFE Act, and Republican proposals at the state level - including one to exempt upstate - will not pass without the support of Assembly Democrats from downstate.

"They have a different view on gun ownership," said Senator Rob Ortt (R) Niagara County. "Many of them equate it with crime. We equate the Second Amendment with freedom."

State Senator Rich Funke said, "This federal legislation may well be what we need to restore the freedom New Yorkers have enjoyed for centuries."

The bill asks conservative Republicans to limit the rights of states, but Collins predicted the bill will have the support it needs. "We're not going to allow a state to stomp on your rights for religion, and we're not going to let them stomp on the Second Amendment, and that's the difference," said Collins. "It is state's rights until they override a constitutional amendment."

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo issued a statement Monday afternoon, blasting the bill as a, "blatant political ploy," and, "disturbing."

View post:

Rep. Collins to introduce Second Amendment Guarantee Act - 13WHAM-TV

On May 9, 2017, the Indiana Supreme Court resolved a long-standing dispute in Indiana:

May a police officer detainan individual in possession of a firearm in order to verify that the person's possession of the gun is lawful?

In Pinner v. State, the court ruled that the mere possession of a gun, without some additional indication that the possession is illegal, does not justify a police officer in conducting an "investigatory stop" of the individual to check to see if the person has a License to Carry Handgun or that the person's possession of the firearm is otherwise lawful. And since the possession of a gun alone does not justify a stop - it also does not justify a search of the individual as part of a "stop & frisk."

Now,Indiana Attorney GeneralCurtis Hillis asking the United States Supreme Court to accept a case that originated in West Virginia, Shaquille Robinson v. U.S..and urging SCOTUS to create a similar rule for the country as a whole thatIndiana adopted in the Pinner case.

In Robinson, a witness called authorities to report that he had seen a man in a parking lot of a 7-Eleven loading a gun and placing that gun into his pocket. The witness gave a description of the armed man and the car he got into in the parking lot. Officers then pulled over the car - purportedly because neither Robinson nor the female driver were wearing a seatbelt - and asked Robinson to exit the vehicle. When asked if he was armed, Robinson did not respond verbally but gave the officer "a weird look." At this point, Robinson was directed to place his hands on the roof of the vehicle,he was searched, and the officer recovered a handgun from his pocket. Robinson was arrested, prosecuted and convictedunder federal law for illegal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the primary issue was whether police had the legal right to search Robinson during the traffic stop. Robinson argued that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights, since the police officers were acting only on a tip that he was armed and had no reason to believe that his possession of a firearm was illegal or that he was a danger to the officers at the time of the stop. In ruling that the search was legal and upholding Robinson's conviction, the Fourth Circuit held that the mere possession of a firearm is sufficient for a police officer to fear for his safety and justifies a search of the person who is reportedly armed -- even with no reason to believe that the person's possession of the firearm is illegal.

Now, Indiana is among five states (including Michigan, Utah, Texas and West Virginia) who have filed an "amicus curiae" (friend of the court)brief, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant Robinson's petition for certiorari and to review the case.

In the brief, Indiana argues that the Fourth Circuit's ruling "forces an individual to choose between her right to bear arms under the Second Amendment and her right to be free from searches under the Fourth Amendment." In effect, Indiana is now asking SCOTUS to adopt arule very similar to the ruling of the Indiana Supreme Court inthis year's Pinner case - that the mere possession of a firearm is not sufficient to justify a stop or a searchof a person by a police officer without some other reason to believe that the armed person is committing a crime or is a danger to the officer.

Hoosiers should be proud that the State of Indiana, through our Attorney General, is taking a stand in support of our Constitutional rightsnot only our right to bear arms, but our right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizuresrecognizing that a person who chooses to exercise his Second Amendment rights should not automatically forfeit his rights under the Fourth Amendment.

Guy A. Relford

Guy A. Relford is a Second Amendment attorney in Carmel, Indiana. He is also the owner and chief instructor of Tactical Firearms Training, LLC in Indianapolis and the author of Gun Safety & Cleaning for Dummies (Wiley & Sons Publications, 2012). He hosts The Gun Guy with Guy Relford on WIBC radio in Indianapolis.

See the rest here:

Indiana AG: Citizens Don't Forfeit 4th Amendment Rights When ... - 93.1 WIBC Indianapolis (blog)

If youve heard of Brazilian jiu-jitsu, mixed-martial arts or the UFC, the reason is Royce Gracie. In the early 1990s, his dominance of the octagon brought his familys style of jiu-jitsu into the American mainstream, and the martial art has become immensely popular around the world ever since. In addition to his hand-to-hand combat skills, Gracie is also a fan of firearms and the Second Amendment. Editor-in-Chief Ed Friedman sat down with Gracie to discuss his career, his love of freedom and his interest in guns.

SI: How did you get interested in firearms?

Royce Gracie: Growing up in Brazil, my dad had a few guns on our farm. Its part of martial arts. Sure, they say its empty hands, but so many styles use weapons, so its part of the martial arts culture. When I came to America and saw the freedom that we have, I was blown away. Back in the early days, we had a friend who would take us to the range, and wed shoot 100 rounds through a .45 ACP 1911. Our goal was to make the bullseye disappear, and I got the shooting bug. Shooting is an art. You need to know what youre doing, how to be safe, to recognize the skill needed to control that power. Its a lot like martial arts in that way.

SI: What makes someone who is so skilled in unarmed self-defense feel the need to own firearms?

Royce Gracie: What if theres more than one person? What if the adversary is armed? If its just one guy whos not armed, yeah, I can take care of him. But what if he pulls a gun? What if theres more than one attacker and they have knives? What happens if theres a terrorist attack? Ive got a mentality that Im going to try to stop an attack no matter what, but if hes got a gun, thats suicidal if Im not armed. Also, if a criminal is attacking other people, its not always feasible for even someone with my skills to stop that attack without a firearm.

Attackers arent going to make it a fair fight. They launch surprise assaults; they try to take you out to get to your family or your property. Its not the octagon. Theres no referee. And if he pulls a weapon, hes not just trying to fight mehes trying to kill me. At that point, youd be crazy to try to go hand to hand. I have a gun to defend myself if the situation escalates like that.

SI: Tell me a little about the situation in Brazil as it pertains to gun ownership and crime.

Royce Gracie: Brazil never had the degree of freedom we have in the U.S., but you used to be able to buy some guns. There were restrictions, but there were shops we could go to. Then, they essentially banned civilian ownership guns in what they said was an effort to fight crime. That resulted in the criminals arming themselves to the teeth. I mean, they had RPGs and machine guns. They get it from corrupt officials. Violence got out of control after that. It was like the law switched to protect the bad guys. So at the same time they disarmed the law-abiding citizens, they made life easier on the criminals. The murder rate went through the roof. Its so bad, the prisoners in jails get better food than the police!

SI: Why do people sign up for your classes? What is it about Brazilian jiu-jitsu that is so popular?

Royce Gracie: The main reason people go to any martial arts school is to gain confidence by learning skills. They may have had something happen to them or seen a situation that they didnt know how to react to. That stays with themthey dont go right away to learn about self-defense, but that thought stays filed away. Then one day a friend will say Hey, Im learning this martial art; lets go check it out. Then they go to class and start to get the hang of it. Its a lot of the same reasons why people buy a gun for the first time. People realize theyre vulnerable, but it often takes a while. Its not like they see a fight and say, I need to learn a martial art, but a while later that thought comes to the front and they sign up for a class. Its really all about the skills you need to be confident. Parents sign their kids up for the same reason; for the confidence that can come with the discipline that martial arts provide.

SI: What can people expect to learn in a Royce Gracie-taught class?

Royce Gracie: I teach them self-defense. I dont teach competition. Martial arts were made to defend yourself. A lot of schools teach you how to score points, but thats not real life. Competition can ruin a martial art. I teach how to defend yourself in a street-fight situation. Why do you buy a gun? Sure, there are a small number of people who want to be the best competitive shooter in the world, but for most of us, its for self-defense. And maybe that leads to competition, which is fine, but thats not why you signed up for a martial arts class or why you bought that first gun.

SI: What drew you to the NRA? How important is the Second Amendment to you?

Royce Gracie: The National Rifle Association is the front line of keeping my right to keep and bear arms. Thats the way I look at it. I really respect the NRA, because I know from experience, from what happened to Brazil, how important the Second Amendment is. It is my right to defend myself, and the NRA makes sure that right will be there. Look what happened when they took those rights away in Brazil, in Venezuelait is vital to keep that right.

Want to take a class with Royce Gracie? Visit NRACarryGuardExpo.com today to sign up for the (limited-space) Brazilian jiu-jitsu class he will teach at the inaugural Carry Guard Expo in Milwaukee, WI, Aug. 25 to 27. Gracie will teach paying attendees several moves that could come in handy should you find yourself in a close-quarters criminal attack. He will also be signing autographs at the show. In addition, there will be seminars from world-class instructors like Steve Tarani, Travis Doc T and many others, so you wont want to miss the best event for those interested in self-defense.

More:

MMA Legend Royce Gracie on the Second Amendment - Shooting Illustrated (press release) (blog)

Its happened again. Police officers in Southaven, Miss., were trying to serve an arrest warrant for aggravated assault on a man named Samuel Pearman, but instead they showed up at a trailer owned by an auto mechanic named Ismael Lopez. It was nighttime, and according to his wife, Lopez went to the door to investigate a noise. She stayed in bed.

What happened next was tragic. According to the police, Lopez opened his door and a pit bull charged out. One officer opened fire on the dog, the other officer fired on the man allegedly holding a gun in the doorway, pointing it at the men approaching his home. As the Washington Post reported on July 26, it was only after the smoke cleared that the officers made their heart-dropping discovery: They were at the wrong home.

Lopez died that night. Just like Andrew Scott died in his entrance hall, gun in hand, when the police pounded on the wrong door late one night, Scott opened it, saw shadowy figures outside, and started to retreat back into his house. Police opened fire, and he died in seconds.

Angel Mendez was more fortunate. He only lost his leg when the police barged into his home without a warrant and without announcing themselves. They saw his BB gun and opened fire, inflicting grievous wounds.

If past precedent holds, its likely that the officers who killed Ismael Lopez will be treated exactly like the officers in the Scott and Mendez cases. They wont be prosecuted for crimes, and theyll probably even be immune from civil suit, with the court following precedents holding that the officers didnt violate Lopezs clearly established constitutional rights when they approached the wrong house. After all, officers have their own rights of self-defense. What, exactly, are they supposed to do when a gun is pointed at their face?

In other words, the law typically allows officers to shoot innocent homeowners who are lawfully exercising their Second Amendment rights and then provides these same innocent victims with no compensation for the deaths and injuries that result. This is unacceptable, its unjust, and it undermines the Second Amendment.

Think where this leaves homeowners who hear strange sounds or who confront pounding on the door. Should they risk their safety by leaving their gun in the safe while they check to make sure its not the police? Should they risk their lives by bringing the gun to the door, knowing that the police may not announce themselves and may simply be trying to barge into the wrong home? Doesnt the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure include a right to be free of armed, mistaken, warrantless, home intrusions?

Its time for the law to accommodate the Second Amendment. Its time for legal doctrine to reflect that when the state intrudes in the wrong home or lawlessly or recklessly even into the right home that it absolutely bears the costs of its own mistakes. Its time for law enforcement practice to reflect the reality that tens of millions of law-abiding men and women exercise their fundamental, constitutional rights to protect themselves and their families.

What does this mean, in practice? First, extraordinarily dangerous and kinetic no-knock raids should be used only in the most extreme circumstances. Writers such as Radley Balko have written extensively about the prevalence of the practice (even in routine drug busts), the dangers inherent in dynamic entry, and the sad and terrible circumstances where the police find themselves in a gunfight with terrified homeowners.

Second, prosecutors should closely scrutinize every single instance of mistaken-identity raids. Good-faith mistakes are always possible, but given the stakes involved when police raid homes or pound on doors late at night with their guns drawn, they should exercise a high degree of care and caution in choosing the right house. Its hard to imagine a worse or more tragic injustice than being gunned down in your own home by mistaken agents of the state.

Third, if and when police do kill or injure innocent homeowners, they should be stripped of qualified immunity even when the homeowner is armed. There are circumstances where it would improper to file criminal charges against an officer who makes a good-faith mistake and finds himself making an immediate life-or-death situation, but when the mistake is his, then he should face strict liability for all the harm he causes.

As the law now stands, police are not only rarely prosecuted when they violate the Fourth and Second Amendment rights of innocent homeowners by gunning them down in their own home, its often difficult even to impose civil liability. Innocent men and women are left with no recourse, and officers remain immune from judicial accountability for their own, tragic mistakes.

Last year a Minnesota police officer shot a lawfully armed Philando Castile during a traffic stop despite the fact that Castile was precisely following the officers commands. The officers acquittal unquestionably undermined the Second Amendment, but such shootings are mercifully rare. More common are the panicked, confused moments late at night or early in the morning when a homeowner hears shouts at his door, or someone breaks it down, and all he knows is that armed men are in his house. In those moments, a persons rights of self-defense are at their unquestioned apex. Its the states responsibility to protect those rights, not snuff out a life and escape all legal consequence.

READ MORE: Another Federal Court of Appeals Attacks the Second Amendment The Need for Smarter Second Amendment Jurisprudence The Real Reason Officers Are Rarely Convicted of Shooting Suspects

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

Continued here:

Police Threaten Second Amendment, Raid Wrong Home, Shoot ... - National Review

In a major development in the ongoing effort to restore the Second Amendment in Washington, D.C., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion on Tuesday that would effectively require D.C. officials to make concealed carry licenses available on a shall-issue basis.

The courts decision comes in the combined cases of Wrenn v. D.C. and Grace v. D.C.

Following the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, which recognized a Second Amendment right to have operable handguns in the home for self-defense, the District retaliated by banning carrying of firearms outside the home.

A lower federal court found D.C.s carry ban also violated the Second Amendment, but rather than comply with that ruling, D.C. created a sham system for concealed carry permits that requires applicants to show a good or proper reason for needing to carry a concealed handgun. This includes a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community, job duties requiring the transport of large amounts of cash or valuables, or the need to protect a close relative who cannot provide for his or her own special self-defense needs. Practically speaking, this means the vast majority of law-abiding people who simply want to carry a handgun for self-dense in ordinary circumstances are automatically disqualified.

Licensed concealed carry, moreover, is the only option for ordinary people to lawfully carry a loaded, accessible firearm for self-defense outside the persons home or business in D.C., so in effect the ban on carry already found unconstitutional remains.

Wrenn and Grace therefore presented the appellate court with the questions of whether the Second Amendments right to bear arms for self-defense extends beyond the home and, if so, whether District officials could nevertheless deny that right to all but a select, hand-picked few. The courts answer to those questions was a resounding yes and no, respectively.

The D.C. Circuit analogized the Districts current concealed carry licensing regime to the ban on keeping handguns at issue in Heller. The issue, the court stated, is not whether a few select people could exercise the right but whether it was available to responsible, law-abiding people in ordinary circumstances.Because the court found that D.C.s good or proper reason requirement was effectively a ban on bearing arms by people entitled to Second Amendment protection, it declared the requirement invalid and barred its enforcement.

The upshot of this decision is that D.C. must now issue concealed carry licenses to all otherwise eligible applicants, i.e., those who pass the Districts background check and training requirements and pay the applicable fees. Unfortunately, the courts order is effectively on hold while District officials determine their next legal move. That could mean asking for a rehearing before the full D.C. Circuit or appealing directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

How the District will proceed remains to be seen, but in the meantime, your NRAs efforts in the Grace case have for now contributed to winning a vital battle in the continuing conflict over the right to keep and bear arms in the seat of the nations government. As ever, we will keep our readers apprised of further developments in this ongoing effort.

Excerpt from:

NRA-ILA | Appeals Court Schools D.C. on Heller's Meaning ... - NRA ILA

Things that should not be abridged.

Starting in September, Texas will allow you to open-carry swords. The state already allows you to carry around blades shorter than 5.5 inches, but this fall that restriction will be lifted and Texans can get their saber on.

I think thats great. Seriously. I am totally cool with the right to bear swords. Its an originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment. A sword is way closer to an 18th-century musket than any of the sub-assault-pocket-Uzis turning our country into a shooting gallery today. If you could get people to turn in their guns to receive a personally crafted sword, Id vote to melt down the Intrepid for steel and enslave Hitori Hanzo to do the work.

Guns kill innocent bystanders. The only innocent bystander ever to be killed by a sword was Polonius, and Hamlet felt super bad after that happened. Guns kill indiscriminately. Swords kill their intended target. If we accept that in an free society, some killing must be done in the fight for scarce resources, swords are tactical weapons while guns are weapons of mass destruction.

And while were here, lets remember that a sub-5.5 inch knife is probably way more deadly than a freaking broadsword. Christ. An enemy will make you look like a bloody sprinkler system in the time it takes for you to unsheathe your katana. Youre not a damn Jedi. If Texas is already allowing knives (and guns!), then nobody is made less safe by toting around a sword. Once the F-150 comes out with stab-proof seating, nothing will even be significantly damaged by these things.

I dont know that you can ever go back again. I dont know that you can ever get rid of all the guns lurking in our country. But our country made a wrong turn when we broadly interpreted arms to include rapid-fire hand-held artillery units, as opposed to something limited to personal stabbing weapons and slow reload rifles.

Hannibal didnt need guns. Batman doesnt need guns. Guns are for cowards. If you want to defend your people, you should be limited to the ax aisle at Walmart.

New Texas Law To Allow Open Carry Of Swords, Machetes [CBS Dallas-Fort Worth]

Elie Mystal is an editor of Above the Law and the Legal Editor for More Perfect. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.

Go here to see the original:

Open-Carry Swords: A Civilized Second Amendment Right - Above the Law

Second Amendment rights must be preserved The Second Amendment is needed more today than at any other time in history.

As the military, A well-regulated Militia, grows in size, the more the rights of the people to bear arms must be protected. The same is true as the size of law enforcement grows, the rights of the people to bear arms must be protected.

The Second Amendment is necessary, if not more so, today than when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. It does not need changing or tweaking in any manner. What it needs is to be applied as written.

We cannot totally leave our security, the defense of our families and the defense of our property to law enforcement officers. We must be self-reliant enough to protect ourselves, our family and our property from those who would cause us harm or try to take our property.

Those who believe citizens right to bear arms should be curtailed or eliminated in any manner should do a bit of research first on violent crime and then on what happens when arms are taken away from the citizens of a country.

As gun ownership decreases or arms are confiscated, violent crime rates increase. Yes, violent crimes involving guns decrease, but violent crime by other means increase so much that the overall violent crime rate increases. This is true as well within cities that have curtailed arms ownership. Chicago is a prime example!

Germany confiscated arms at the beginning of World War II. The Nazis then killed millions of citizens. When China confiscated arms, China then went on to kill millions. These are just two examples of what happens when the citizens lose the right to bear arms.

I spent 20 years in the military. I am also a big fan and supporter of law enforcement. We need both a strong military and effective law enforcement force. But these two cannot do it alone; they need the help of the citizens and that means that the citizens should be free to bear arms in support of law enforcement and the military to protect their families and property!

See the original post:

Second Amendment rights must be preserved - The Wilson Times (subscription)

This opinion was handed down in Wrenn v. District of Columbia,a case wherein the D.C. Circuit ruled that the citys good-reason requirement for concealed carry issuance is not constitutional. When the ruling was issued, Breitbart News reported that the court issued a permanent injunction, barring future use of the good-reason clause to limit concealed carry permit issuance.

The Wrenn ruling was welcomed with open arms by concealed carriers, as it came roughly a month after the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) refused to hear Peruta v. California. In Peruta, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Americans have no right to carry a concealed handgun outside the home for self-defense.

Perutas majority opinion was written byJudge William Fletcher and said, We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public. And contrary to what the D.C. Circuit ruled this week, the Peruta ruling upheld Californias good cause for concealed carry permit issuance.

So we have two views, diametrically opposed, on two separate coasts. On the east coast, the D.C. Circuit defended the right to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, and on the west coast, the Ninth Circuit ruled that no such right exists.

As this split festers, we may end up getting the SCOTUS review that Justice Clarence Thomas has been urging his colleagues to undertake. Hecalled it indefensible when they refused to hear Peruta,and if D.C. appeals the D.C. Circuit decision, his colleagues will get the opportunity to review a similar case Wrenn in the shadow of an obvious circuit split.

Thomas is already on record saying SCOTUS ought not sit idly by as state-level gun control cripples the Second Amendment.

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

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

Go here to see the original:

Circuit Court: 2nd Amendment Protects Right 'to Carry Firearms for Personal Self-Defense Beyond the Home' - Breitbart News

Washington Post

Mo Brooks: 'Second Amendment' | Campaign 2018 Washington Post July 24, 2017 1:14 PM EDT - Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), who is running for Alabama's Senate seat in a special election primary on Aug. 15, released a campaign video invoking the GOP baseball practice shooting in June. (Mo Brooks for Senate) ...

Continued here:

Mo Brooks: 'Second Amendment' | Campaign 2018 - Washington Post

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ruled that the District government must grant handgun carry licenses to D.C. residents on the same basis that carry permits are issued in most states. In particular, D.C. may not limit carry permits only to persons who prove a special needfor self-protection distinguishable from the general communityas supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacksthat demonstrate a special danger to the applicants life. Instead, D.C. must follow the standard American system: issuing permits to adults who pass a fingerprint-based background check and a safety training class.

The Circuit Courts opinion comes in a pair of cases: Wrenn v. District of ColumbiaandMatthew Grace and Pink Pistols v. District of Columbia. (Pink Pistols is a LGBT advocacy group that has played an important rolein Second Amendment cases.) The opinion was written byJudge Thomas B. Griffith and joined by Senior Judge Stephen F. Williams. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented. The cases have a long and complicated procedural history; when Wrennwas before the D.C. Circuit in an earlier round, I participated in an amicus briefexamining Anglo-American legal history on the right to carry.

Background: The right to bear arms has gone through the following developments in D.C. in the past decade:

2007 (pre-Heller) License is required to carry arms, even to carry a firearm from one room to another in ones home.

2008 (Hellerdecision) Supreme Court strikes down the D.C. handgun ban and the D.C. ban on having any functional firearm in the home. In the course of litigation, D.C. had promised that if the handgun ban were struck, then it would issue plaintiff Dick Heller a license to carry in his own home. Thus, the court stated, We therefore assume that petitioners issuance of a license will satisfy respondents prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement.

2008 (post-Heller) TheD.C. Council repeals its handgun ban and enacts a new handgun registration ordinance. Once a handgun has been lawfully registered, no permission is needed to carry it inside the home. There is no provision for licensed carry outside the home.

2009-2016 In response to public criticism (e.g., Emily Millers book Emily Gets Her Gun) and litigation, the D.C. gun registration statute and its application are improved, from being dysfunctional to instead being exceptionally strict, but mostly functional.Meanwhile, new litigation, led byHellers victorious attorney Alan Gura, engages the right to carry outside the home. In 2014, the D.C. law making it impossible to obtain a permit to carry outside the home is held unconstitutional. (Similar to an Illinois statute that was held unconstitutional by the 7th Circuit in 2012.)

Rather than appealing the decision, D.C. adopts a very narrow licensing law: Carry permits for outside the home will be issued only if there is a good reason, defined to mean that the applicant has a special need.After much procedural delay, the issue is finally decided on the merits on July 25, 2017. Thedistrict courts inWrenn andPink Pistolshad split on whether the D.C. special need ordinance was constitutional. The Court of Appeals rules that the ordinances violates the Second Amendment.

Majority opinion: To begin with, the court finds that the right to keep and bear Arms includes the right not only to keep arms in the home but also to bear arms outside the home. Hellersaid so. So did the 19th-century cases favorably cited byHeller.They recognized a right to carry, and also upheld non-prohibitory regulations on the manner of carry. For example, the legislature may choose to require that arms be carried openly, rather than concealed. The few 19th-century cases that upheld carrying bans were all based on the flawed premise that the right to arms is only about the militia; sinceHellerdispelled that theory, the militia-only precedents are of little value.

Legal history: D.C. had argued that Englands 1328 Statute of Northampton banned all arms-carrying, and this controls the meaning of the Second Amendment. (Several legal historians and I argued to the contrary, in the amicus brief cited above.) On the matter of English history, the D.C. Circuit found that for every point there is an equal and oppositecounterpoint. However, the state of the law in Chaucers England or for that matter Shakespeares or Cromwells isnot decisive here. Instead, the history showcased in Heller Icontradicts the main scholar (Patrick Charles) who contends that there is no right to carry. For example,Hellersaid that by the time of the English Bill of Rights in 1689, the right to arms included the right to carryweapons in case of confrontation. Likewise, James Wilson earlycommentator, virtual coauthor of the Constitution, and memberof the Supreme Courts first cohort, had explicated that Founding-eraNorthampton laws banned only the carrying of dangerous andunusual weapons, in such a manner, as will naturally diffuse aterrour among the people.

D.C. had offered a second major argument that there is no meaningful right to bear arms: Based on the writings of Saul Cornell, D.C. contended that several 19th-century state surety of the peace statutes prohibited carrying in most circumstances. As the court pointed out, this argument was based on misreading the statutes. Under these statutes (the first of which was enacted in Massachusetts), anyone could carry arms. If someone else brought a civil case alleging that carrier was threatening to breach the peace, the carrier could be forced to post bond for good behavior. After posting bond, the carrier could go on carrying.

Thus, the Districts historical arguments that there is no right to carry, or no right to carry in cities, were incorrect. To the contrary, carrying beyond the home, even in populatedareas, even without special need, falls within the Amendmentscoverage, indeed within its core (citing, among other authorities, Eugene Volokhs oft-cited Implementing the Right to Keep and BearArms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and aResearch Agenda, 56 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 1443 (2009)).

Standard of review: In general, judicial review of a law that affects constitutional rights depends on what the law does. Laws that merely regulate the time, place or manner (e.g., no using loudspeakers in the park after 10 p.m.) received intermediate scrutiny. Laws that regulate the content of speech (e.g., people can have parades for holidays, but not for political purposes) receive strict scrutiny. Laws that destroy a right, or laws that discriminate based on the viewpoint of speech, are categorically unconstitutional (e.g., radio stations may praise the conduct of the war but may not criticize it).

TheHellercase involved a handgun ban. Rather than applying strict or intermediate scrutiny, the Supreme Court held the ban to be categorically unconstitutional. Suppose that instead of banning handguns, D.C. had allowed handgun possession only by a small minority with a special need to possess. The D.C. Circuit was doubtful that the Supreme Court would have upheld such a near-total ban. Indeed, the D.C. handgun ban had what the Supreme Court called minor exceptions, but theHelleropinion said that the exceptions were not relevant here.Instead, theHeller opinion recognized a general right to arms, not a right only for persons with a special need.Hellervindicates the rights of those who possess common levels of need.

For almost all D.C. residents, the special need requirement amounts to a total ban on their right to bear arms. Hence, it is categorically unconstitutional, for the same reason that the total ban on handguns was held unconstitutional inHeller.

Dissent: Judge Henderson dissented, as she has in every previous case that has upheld a scintilla of Second Amendment rights. In the D.C. Circuit, the case that later becameD.C. v. Heller in the Supreme Court wasParker v. D.C.While the majority held D.C.s handgun ban unconstitutional, Judge Henderson invented the novel theory that because the Second Amendment says the security of a free State, the Second Amendment does not apply in the District of Columbia. (This was refuted in Volokh, Necessary to the Security of a Free State, 83 Notre Dame L.Rev. 1 (2007), which is cited inHeller; free State in this context means a free polity.)

Similarly, inHeller III, the D.C. Circuit majority upheld some D.C. registration requirements, while rejecting others, such as the requirement that registered guns must be re-registered every three years. The alleged purpose was to inform the police about lost or stolen guns, but D.C. already had a separate law requiring the reporting of lost or stolen guns. Judge Henderson would have upheld all of the D.C. registration ordinance.

In accord with opinions from the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Circuits, she argued that the right to arms outside the home is far from the core of the Second Amendment. Accordingly, no more than intermediate scrutiny should apply. Especially when considering the unique needs of the densely populated District, with it many security concerns, courts should defer to the D.C. Councils judgment that a near-total ban on carrying would promote public safety.

Conclusion: Lower federal court judges have varied widely in how rigorously they apply the Supreme CourtsHeller decision. Some, like Judge Henderson, have opted for a very weak form of intermediate scrutiny (or even less) that will uphold just about every gun control other than a handgun ban. Others have applied a more vigorous review, and have found some (but certainly not all) gun controls to be unconstitutional. (For a survey of the decisions, see Kopel & Greenlee, The Federal Circuits Second Amendment Doctrines, 61St. Louis U.L.J. 193 (2017).)

In my view, theWrennmajority correctly followedHeller, which teaches that total bans (or 99 percent bans) applied to law-abiding citizens are categorically unconstitutional. Notably, theWrenndecision acknowledgesHellers dictum that carrying maybe prohibited in sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings. Given the multitude of government buildings in the District, there are still many places where carrying may be prohibited. However, when a woman is walking at night from her apartment to an automobile parking lot, the District may not prohibit her from being able to defend herself.

As explainedelsewhere in ThePost, The ruling from a three-judge panel gives city officials 30 days to decide whether to appeal for review by a full complement of D.C. Circuit judges. If the court does not agree to revisit the case sitting as an en banc panel, the order would take effect seven days later. After losing in Parker and Heller III, the D.C. attorney general petitioned for en banc review, which requires an affirmative vote by the majority of non-senior Judges. Neither petition was granted.

Read this article:

DC Circuit upholds right to bear arms for DC residents - Washington Post

Second Amendment

Posted July 26, 2017 8:40 am CDT

By Debra Cassens Weiss

Shutterstock.com

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 on Tuesday that the restriction violates the Second Amendment because it amounts to a total ban on the right to carry a gun for most residents. The Wall Street Journal (sub. req.), Reuters and the Washington Post covered the decision (PDF).

At the Second Amendments core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to longstanding restrictions, Judge Thomas Griffith wrote for the majority. Traditional restrictions include licensing requirements, but not special-needs requirements, he said.

The Second Amendment erects some absolute barriers that no gun law may breach, Griffith wrote.

At least four other federal appeals courts have upheld similar restrictions, while a fifth has recognized a constitutional right to carry a gun outside the home, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The Washington, D.C., gun law says the police chief may issue concealed carry permits to those who show good reason to fear injury to his person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol.

To show good reason, applicants have to show evidence of specific threats or previous attacks that demonstrate a special danger to the applicants life. District regulations interpret other proper reason to include employment involving the transportation of cash or valuables.

Washington, D.C., is considering asking the full court to hear the appeal, which had consolidated two casesWrenn v. District of Columbia and Grace v. District of Columbia.

Read the original post:

Restrictive concealed carry law violates Second Amendment, DC Circuit rules - ABA Journal

Attorney General Ken Paxton recently joined West Virginias amicus brief inRobinson v. United Statesalong with Indiana,Michigan, and Utah in the United States Supreme Court to protect against unjustified frisk searches occurring on the suspicion that a citizen is armed. The basis for this search places a burden on the Second Amendment right to carry a firearm.

In 1968,Terry v. Ohiodetermined that a law enforcement officer may both stop and frisk an individual when specific and articulable facts lead an officer to reasonably believe criminal activity is occurring. This search is justifiable when the officer believes the detained individual is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or others. However, anen bancFourth Circuit recently interpretedTerryto require only a reasonable suspicion that the individual is armed. This interpretation allows officers to justify a frisk search solely on the suspicion of possessing a weapon during a lawful stop, regardless whether there is a reasonable belief that the individual is dangerous.

The Fourth Circuit interpretation places an unlawful burden on Second Amendment rights. The Constitution plainly guarantees law-abiding citizens the right to bear arms, whether through open or concealed carry, said Attorney General Paxton. We must ensure the Court continues to protect the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.

Let us know what you think in the comments.

Original post:

AG Paxton Joins Others in Supreme Court Brief to Protect Second Amendment Rights - eParisExtra.com (blog)

FAIRFAX, Va. The right to self-defense scored an important victory on Tuesday when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down Washington D.Cs unconstitutional restrictions on issuing concealed carry permits. Today's ruling in Grace v. District of Columbiabuilds on the landmark Supreme Court case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

The Second Amendment protects the fundamental, individual right of Americans to not only keep arms, but also to bear arms. D.C. residents have suffered under a near total ban on their right to carry a firearm for self-defense, said Chris W. Cox, executive director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. Todays ruling is an important step toward protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.

The decision overturns D.C.s requirement that citizens prove they have a good reason to obtain a concealed carry permit. For the overwhelming majority of permit applicants, this results in ade factoprohibition on their right to carry a firearm for self-defense.

In the majority decision, Judge Thomas Griffith wrote At the Second Amendment's core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home", and that "The good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on most D.C. residents right to carry a gun in the face of ordinary self-defense needs.

Governments should not be allowed to take constitutional rights away from law-abiding citizens, Cox concluded. This decision demonstrates that the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense is clearly protected by the Second Amendment.

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

Read the original:

NRA-ILA | Court Strikes Down Unconstitutional Ban on Concealed ... - NRA ILA

A recent questionable claim we fact-checked stemmed from a discussion about whether to ban assault weapons.

Clickbait websites love to make up fake quotes for celebrities and controversial politicians, hoping to mislead readers into clicking into their content and seeing their ads.

For instance, we recently fact-checked a post accusing former Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., of saying something she didnt say; we rated it Pants on Fire.

Now, as part of Facebooks efforts to fight fake news, we learned that users had flagged as questionable a post from someone Bachmann used to babysit for -- former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson. (Yes, the babysitting part is actually true.)

The claim about Carlson appeared first on a site called therightists.com. It was headlined, "Gretchen Carlson: The 2nd Amendment Was Written Before Guns Were Invented. "

Within days, the item was picked up and reprinted essentially verbatim on other websites. One version got 31,400 shares through July 24.

The accompanying article uses as its launching-off point something that Carlson did actually do -- making an on-air break with conservative orthodoxy by saying, in the wake of the Orlando nightclub mass shooting in 2016, that the assault-weapons ban should be reinstated.

"Do we need AR-15s to hunt and kill deer? Do we need them to protect our families?" she asked on air. "Cant we hold true the sanctity of the Second Amendment while still having common sense?"

These comments drew opposition from gun-rights supporters. Its at this point that the article veers off into fabrication.

The article reads, "Interestingly, when confronted by Second Amendment supporters on Twitter, Carlson doubled down on her pro-ban stance, claiming that the fact that youre even using the Second Amendment as an argument against banning assault weapons shows me youre ignorant. Dont you know the 2nd Amendment was written before guns were even invented? "

This would be a ridiculous claim if shed actually said it.

As schoolchildren are taught, muskets were used in the American Revolution. (Heres an example from the collection of the Museum of the American Revolution.) And the revolution occurred more than a decade before the 1789 drafting and ratification of the Bill of Rights, which includes the Second Amendment. ("A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.")

Indeed, the history of firearms goes back even further than that -- to the 1300s, more than four centuries before the Second Amendment was written.

The first hint that this may be bogus appears elsewhere on therightists.com website. On the sites "About Us" page, a grammatically challenged warning explains that therightists.com "is independent News platform That allow People and independent Journalist to bring the news directly to the readers. Readers come to us as a source of independent news that not effected from the big channels. This is HYBRID site of news and satire. part of our stories already happens, part, not yet. NOT all of our stories are true!"

Of course, this warning isnt noted on the actual page the Carlson story appears on.

We also couldnt find any credible news source reporting Carlsons words as cited in therightists.com article.

Finally, we checked with Carlsons office. In a statement, her office confirmed that the article was "total B.S."

Bottom line: Carlson did not say, "The 2nd Amendment Was Written Before Guns Were Invented." The accusation that she did rates as Pants on Fire.

Share the Facts

2017-07-24 19:53:16 UTC

1

1

7

Pants on Fire

Say Gretchen Carlson said, "The 2nd Amendment Was Written Before Guns Were Invented."

various websites

Thursday, June 15, 2017

2017-06-15

Read more:

No, Gretchen Carlson didn't say 2nd Amendment written before guns invented - PolitiFact (blog)

Breitbart News reported that Republican Congressmen were attacked June 14 by a Bernie Sanders supporter armed with a rifle and a handgun. Both guns were acquired via background checks, the gun control mechanism which the left and their surrogates in the establishment media hold as sacrosanct.

The New York Times admitted that the lefts beloved gun control was impotent to stop the attacker, but simultaneously covered their bases by arguing that no one wants to live in a world where guns are easier to acquire and law-abiding citizens go about their days with a gun on their hip or in their purses. The NYT does not realize that in the real worldthe world outside of NYT headquarters, CNN headquarters, and the Washington DC beltwaymillions upon millions of Americans carry a gun on their hip or in their purses daily for self-defense.

Brooks commercial shows that this is lost on the establishment media, who could not keep from asking him about gun control in the immediate aftermath of the Alexandria attack:

The establishment media stuck a mic in front of Brooks and asked, Does this change your views on the gun situation in America?

Brooks responded, The Second Amendment right to bear arms is to help ensure that we always have a Republic. So no, Im not changing my position on any of the rights that we enjoy as Americans.

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

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

Read more:

Establishment Media Dumbfounded Rep. Mo Brooks Defends 2nd Amendment after Alexandria - Breitbart News

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment I

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

Amendment II

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

Amendment III

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

Amendment IV

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

Amendment V

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

Amendment VI

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

Amendment VII

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

Amendment VIII

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

Amendment IX

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

Amendment X

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

Read more from the original source:

Second Amendment rights - The Constitution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Visit link:

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

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

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

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

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

The burglar fled. Mission accomplished.

Nobody was even physically harmed.

This is how the Second Amendment works.

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

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

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

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

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

See original here:

Girl with gun makes clear 2nd Amendment saves - Washington Times

By Dean Weingarten

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

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

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

Here is an example:

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

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

From reporternews.com:

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

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

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

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

III. CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Link to Gun Watch

About Dean Weingarten:

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

Here is the original post:

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