Supreme Court Turns Down Case on Carrying Guns in Public – New York Times

The court has seldom addressed the scope of Second Amendment rights. In 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep guns at home for self-defense.

Since then, the court has said little about what other laws may violate the Second Amendment. In the lower courts, few challenges to gun control laws since the Heller decision have succeeded.

But legal experts say it is only a matter of time before the court confronts the question of whether and how the Second Amendment applies outside the home.

The case, Peruta v. California, No. 16-894, concerned a state law that essentially bans carrying guns openly in public and allows carrying concealed weapons only if applicants can demonstrate good cause. The challengers, several individuals and gun-rights groups, sued San Diego and Yolo Counties, saying that officials there interpreted good cause so narrowly as to make it impossible to carry guns in public for self-defense.

San Diego, for instance, defined good cause to require proof that the applicant was in harms way, adding that simply fearing for ones personal safety alone is not considered good cause.

In a 7-to-4 ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, said there was no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed weapon.

Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment whatever the scope of that protection may be simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public, Judge William A. Fletcher wrote for the majority.

The court did not decide whether the Second Amendment allows leeway for states to ban carrying guns in public.

There may or may not be a Second Amendment right for a member of the general public to carry a firearm openly in public, Judge Fletcher wrote. The Supreme Court has not answered that question, and we do not answer it here.

The Supreme Court also turned down a second case on gun rights, this one about the constitutionality of a law prohibiting people convicted of serious crimes from owning guns. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor noted that they would have granted review, but they gave no reasons.

The case concerned a federal law that prohibits possessing a gun after a conviction of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. The law has an exception for any state offense classified by the laws of the state as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.

In separate cases, two Pennsylvania men said the law was unconstitutional as applied to them.

They were convicted of minor and nonviolent crimes decades ago, they said, and received no jail time. Though the laws under which they were convicted allowed for the theoretical possibility of sentences longer than two years, they argued, they should not have been stripped of a constitutional right for that reason.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, ruled in their favor.

In urging the Supreme Court to hear the case, Sessions v. Binderup, No. 16-847, the Justice Department said the appeals court had opened the courthouse doors to an untold number of future challenges by other individuals based on their own particular offenses, histories and personal circumstances.

The decision below, the governments brief said, threatens public safety and poses serious problems of judicial administration because it requires judges to make ad hoc assessments of the risks of allowing convicted felons to possess firearms a high-stakes task that Congress has already determined cannot be performed with sufficient reliability, and one for which the judiciary is particularly ill suited.

Follow Adam Liptak on Twitter @adamliptak.

Get politics and Washington news updates via Facebook, Twitter and in the Morning Briefing newsletter.

A version of this article appears in print on June 27, 2017, on Page A13 of the New York edition with the headline: Supreme Court Rejects Another Case on Guns.

View post:

Supreme Court Turns Down Case on Carrying Guns in Public - New York Times

Terry’s Turn: The Second Amendment | Special Sections … – Sioux City Journal

The Second Amendment to the Constitution says I have the right to bear arms, but I really dont think it applies to me. I just have the feeling the Founding Fathers didnt have me in mind when it was approved in 1791. Let me explain.

As a teenager I had a couple of guns, a 410 shotgun and a .22 rifle. I was taught to shoot by my brother-in-law and a lot of his instruction included gun safety. He emphasized that guns are not toys. He took me to a shooting range not far from my home in North Omaha where I practiced my skill at hitting a target under his tutelage. I loved shooting at targets with the rifle and clay pigeons with the shotgun, but I never got interested in hunting. When I went into the Air Force after high school we had to quality on the rifle range and I did pretty well thanks to my brother-in-laws instructions.

When I got married I quickly discovered my new bride did not like guns and didnt want any in the house. That was OK since I couldnt afford a gun or ammo anyway. The no guns rule went on until all our kids had grown and left home. It was then I started a campaign to get a shotgun. I heard there was a skeet range nearby where I could shoot clay pigeons. My campaign to get a shotgun was simple but effective. It consisted of hours of, Please, please, please -- it seemed to work for the kids so I thought Id give it a try. After months of begging she finally relented.

After work one day I went to a local sporting goods store and bought a beautiful 12 gauge pump shotgun. I brought it home and showed my wife. Then as instructed by her I put a trigger lock on it, placed it in a case and put it in my closet. What happened next occurred the very same evening after buying the shotgun.

We ate supper and were in the process of cleaning up when the phone rang. I answered it. A voice on the other end said, This is the Woodbury County Sheriffs Office and there is a deputy outside your door and he wants to talk to you. As I hung up the phone I thought, Oh my gosh they found out I bought a gun!

I told my wife what was going on and then stepped outside. There in front of my house were cars from every law enforcement agency in the area. There were a couple of State Patrol cars, several sheriffs cars and the local police. The officers were out of their cars and searching my lawn.

There was a deputy at the bottom of the porch steps who politely explained, The local police officer reported he heard gunshots in the area and thought it came from here. I thought about it and then remembered hearing something. I told the deputy I heard it too but thought it sounded like a car backfiring.

We talked for a few more minutes and when they couldnt find anything everyone left. I walked back in the house satisfied that the incident was over. There was my wife standing in the living room. She had watched the drama unfold from the window. She had her hands on her hips and was glaring at me. She said, I told you not to buy that damn gun! And walked away.

After a few years of languishing in the closet I finally sold the gun and havent owned one since. Like I said I dont think the Second Amendment applies to me.

Continued here:

Terry's Turn: The Second Amendment | Special Sections ... - Sioux City Journal

Supreme Court Justices Call Second Amendment Case ‘Distressing … – FOX News Radio (blog)

Audio clip: Listen to audio clip.

FOX's Eben Brown has this week's 'FOX Bullet Points':

I'm Eben Brown.

Second Amendment advocates are a bit upset the U.S. Supreme Court didn't take up the case of a California man suing over a denial of a concealed carry permit. In Peruta v. California, the sheriff in San Diego says he can refuse to issue concealed carry permits if the applicant doesn't show a real need for one. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch published a dissent to the court's rejection, calling it 'distressing.'

Meanwhile, in Kansas, it'll be legal to carry without a permit on college campus' starting this Saturday.

You know PayPal, and Square, and Stripe? All three are used more and more by retailers to complete electronic payments. But the three outfits, which are not banks, are now the target of a class action lawsuit. Firearms retailer Blar Gladwin of California, who has his federal firearms license, say the three agencies deny him their services because he sells guns. Gladwin claims it's a civil rights violation.

Those are your Bullet Points! I'm Eben Brown, FOX News!

See original here:

Supreme Court Justices Call Second Amendment Case 'Distressing ... - FOX News Radio (blog)

Dispatches from gun country: This Italian immigrant loves the Second Amendment – Guns.com

Fabrizio Vianello, Second Amendment supporter and owner at Eltenda Channel on Youtube, photographed in Illinois with his Bushmaster AR-15 rifle and his dog Peanut. (Photo: Ben Philippi)

Originally from Italy, Fabrizio Vianello fell in love with an American girl and immigrated to America. Although still fond of his homeland, Fabrizio loves his new country for its infinite possibilities, freedom, and especially, the right to keep and bear arms.

Im the new kid in town.

I moved to America from Europe a few years ago, and since then I have learned so much about what it means to be an American and the importance of the Bill of Rights. People like me have come from all over the world looking for the kind of freedom that America was known for.

The Second Amendment, like all the others, is one of the basic rights that every American in every state should defend. I am surprised at the disinformation campaign of the media and the propaganda against firearms and I hope the people of this great country never forget the importance of their right to bear arms.

Godspeed!

Read more perspectives on Americas gun culture in Ben Philippis book We The People.

Read this article:

Dispatches from gun country: This Italian immigrant loves the Second Amendment - Guns.com

Second Amendment Violations Targeted by Criminal Code Experts – Heritage.org

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Washington, D.C.s ban on handgun possession unconstitutionally infringed on Second Amendment rights. Yet a District law prohibiting with few exceptions ammunition in residents homes lingers on the books.

What good is the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense if you cannot have ammunition? How can residents look to the law to understand what conduct is and is not illegal? Should they follow the statutes? The court? Get confused and forgo their rights?

In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that if a statute is in opposition to the Constitution, the Constitution must govern.

Following that principle, the criminal code reform commission established by the City Council has reviewed the districts criminal laws and identified two statutes Unlawful Possession of Ammunition (D.C. Code 7-2506.01) and Alteration of Identifying Marks of Weapons (D.C. Code 22-4512) as being unconstitutional.

The commissions findings rest on two cases in D.C. courts: Herrington v. United States and Reid v. United States.

In Herrington, the trial court had ruled that all the government needs to prove to obtain [an unlawful possession of ammunition] conviction are that the defendant possessed ammunition, and that he did so knowingly and intentionally. The D.C. Court of Appeals disagreed, writing, a flat ban on the possession of handgun ammunition in the home is not just incompatible with the Second Amendment, but clearly so.

Yet it ruled that the government may convict a defendant of unlawful possession of ammunition if it also proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he had not lawfully registered a firearm of the same gauge or caliber as the ammunition he possesses.

The commissions report identifies the statute as unconstitutional but advises lawmakers to cure that by amending the law to incorporate the courts ruling.

The second offense makes it a crime to alter or obliterate a firearms serial number. The commissions report observes that the law also permits a jury to infer that a person who possesses a weapon with obliterated markings is the same person who did, in fact, obliterate those markings.

In Reid, the D.C. Court of Appeals recognized that individuals might unknowingly acquire weapons with previously obliterated markings, and that, therefore, the presumption of guilt in the statute is fundamentally unfair and violates due process.

Thirty-four years later, commissioners are just now advising lawmakers to bring the law up to date with the U.S. Constitution.

The commissioners give three reasons why lawmakers should no longer delay updating D.C. firearms laws:

1) to ensure respect for the peoples constitutional rights;

2) to clarify to the general public what precisely constitutes an offense; and

3) to guide practitioners in the future.

For the same reasons, other states should review their criminal codes to ensure that Second Amendment rights, and other constitutional provisions, are protected.

As the Supreme Court stated in McBoyle v. United States in 1931, and had recognized long before that, fair warning should be given to the world in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed. To make the warning fair, so far as possible the line should be clear.

In Heller, the Court wrote that the Second Amendment bears no secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation. In McDonald v. Chicago, the Court held that the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applies to the states.

The D.C. Criminal Code Reform Commission represents a step in the right direction. It has provided a straightforward methodology for reviewing criminal laws in the interest of protecting constitutional rights. It is an approach that all cities and states should consider taking.

Original post:

Second Amendment Violations Targeted by Criminal Code Experts - Heritage.org

Second Amendment violations targeted by criminal code experts – Washington Times

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Washington, D.C.s ban on handgun possession unconstitutionally infringed on Second Amendment rights. Yet a District law prohibiting with few exceptions ammunition in residents homes lingers on the books.

What good is the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense if you cannot have ammunition? How can residents look to the law to understand what conduct is and is not illegal? Should they follow the statutes? The court? Get confused and forgo their rights?

In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that if a statute is in opposition to the Constitution, the Constitution must govern.

Following that principle, the criminal code reform commission established by the City Council has reviewed the districts criminal laws and identified two statutes Unlawful Possession of Ammunition (D.C. Code 7-2506.01) and Alteration of Identifying Marks of Weapons (D.C. Code 22-4512) as being unconstitutional.

The commissions findings rest on two cases in D.C. courts: Herrington v. United States and Reid v. United States.

In Herrington, the trial court had ruled that all the government needs to prove to obtain [an unlawful possession of ammunition] conviction are that the defendant possessed ammunition, and that he did so knowingly and intentionally. The D.C. Court of Appeals disagreed, writing, a flat ban on the possession of handgun ammunition in the home is not just incompatible with the Second Amendment, but clearly so.

Yet it ruled that the government may convict a defendant of unlawful possession of ammunition if it also proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he had not lawfully registered a firearm of the same gauge or caliber as the ammunition he possesses.

The commissions report identifies the statute as unconstitutional but advises lawmakers to cure that by amending the law to incorporate the courts ruling.

The second offense makes it a crime to alter or obliterate a firearms serial number. The commissions report observes that the law also permits a jury to infer that a person who possesses a weapon with obliterated markings is the same person who did, in fact, obliterate those markings.

In Reid, the D.C. Court of Appeals recognized that individuals might unknowingly acquire weapons with previously obliterated markings, and that, therefore, the presumption of guilt in the statute is fundamentally unfair and violates due process.

Thirty-four years later, commissioners are just now advising lawmakers to bring the law up to date with the U.S. Constitution.

The commissioners give three reasons why lawmakers should no longer delay updating D.C. firearms laws:

1) to ensure respect for the peoples constitutional rights;

2) to clarify to the general public what precisely constitutes an offense; and

3) to guide practitioners in the future.

For the same reasons, other states should review their criminal codes to ensure that Second Amendment rights, and other constitutional provisions, are protected.

As the Supreme Court stated in McBoyle v. United States in 1931, and had recognized long before that, fair warning should be given to the world in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed. To make the warning fair, so far as possible the line should be clear.

In Heller, the Court wrote that the Second Amendment bears no secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation. In McDonald v. Chicago, the Court held that the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applies to the states.

The D.C. Criminal Code Reform Commission represents a step in the right direction. It has provided a straightforward methodology for reviewing criminal laws in the interest of protecting constitutional rights. It is an approach that all cities and states should consider taking.

John-Michael Seibler is a legal fellow in The Heritage Foundations Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies.

Read this article:

Second Amendment violations targeted by criminal code experts - Washington Times

A New Day for the Second Amendment: Donald Trump Addresses the NRA – NRA ILA

This article appears in the July 2017 issues of the Official Journals of the National Rifle Association.

The drumbeat of fake news continues as the elites disappointed by the 2016 election dedicate themselves to resisting the Trump administration.

Among their many false narratives is that Americans are no longer interested in firearms now that Barack Obama is out of the White House.

At least two big groups of people didnt get that memo.

One is comprised of the 2,045,564 Americans who were queried through the FBIs firearm background check database in April 2017. This was the second busiest April ever for that system. In fact, each month of Trumps presidency has seen over two million firearm-related background checks. Only in 2016, when Americans faced losing their Second Amendment rights forever, did the FBI run more checks during a January to April period.

The other group included the nearly 82,000 people who attended the NRAs Annual Meetings and Exhibits in Atlanta, Georgia in late April. This was our second-highest total of attendees ever. Fifteen acres of guns and gear on display at the Georgia World Congress Center said all that needed to be said about the vitality of Americas firearms industry.

But those werent the only encouraging signs that greeted the NRAs extended family reunion in the Peach State. Our Annual Leadership Forum drew an impressive line-up of speakers. Besides three sitting U.S. Senators (Georgias David Purdue, Alabamas Luther Strange, and Texas Ted Cruz), we heard from Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and Florida Governor Rick Scott. Lt. Col. Allen West and Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke provided a distinguished presence from the uniformed ranks. And rounding out the guest list were Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt, former Major League Baseball great Adam LaRoche, and campus carry advocate Antonia Okafor.

But that was just the undercard, as it were. Because for only the second time in the NRAs history, we welcomed the sitting President of the United States (the last one before him being Ronald Reagan in 1983). For those of us who were on the front lines of the brutal 2016 election (and that included every NRA member present), it was not only an honor to have President Trump address the NRA, but one of the clearest possible lessons of the power the common person still holds in American democracy.

I began my remarks with a montage of film clips showing condescending figures from the political, media, and entertainment establishments dismissing Trumps chances of winning the election, contrasted with footage of the partnership forged between the NRA and Donald Trump. NRA members have always stood apart from the prevailing winds of elite opinion and political correctness to focus on the enduring values that have bound our country together from the beginning.

That resolve was never as evident or necessary as in 2016, when the fate of our country and the Second Amendment literally hung in the balance of the presidential contest. On the one hand was globalist and Second Amendment opponent Hillary Clinton, who claimed that the Supreme Court was wrong to recognize an individual right to keep and bear arms. On the other was Donald Trump, who had a Second Amendment position paper on his campaign website that began, The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. Period. At stake was which of them would appoint the Second Amendments tie-breaking vote on the U.S. Supreme Court.

By the time President Trump addressed the crowd in Atlanta, he had already made that appointment by filling the late Justice Antonin Scalias seat with another constitutional originalist, Neil M. Gorsuch. Once again, we have a majority of support on the Court for our right to keep a gun in our home for self-defense.

President Trump had many stirring things to say during his address. But the line all of us will remember most is when he assured the members of the NRA: you came through for me, and I am going to come through for you.

More than that, however, you the NRAs members came through for America and for the freedoms we hold dear. And American democracy and its elevation of the common man and woman came through for all of us.

As ever, the fight for Americas soul will continue. But that Friday in Atlanta showed with the utmost clarity it is one we can win.

Read the original:

A New Day for the Second Amendment: Donald Trump Addresses the NRA - NRA ILA

Researcher suggests gun related violence prevention, Second … – Guns.com

A Boston-area professor said last week a middle ground exists between protecting the Second Amendment and methods of reducing gun-related violence.

In Broadening the Perspective on Gun Violence: An Examination of the Firearms Industry, 19902015, Boston University School of Public Health professor Dr. Michael Siegel said he wanted to frame gun research in a different context.

Research on firearm violence tends to focus on two elements the host (i.e., victims of firearm violence) and the environment (i.e., gun policies), he said in the articles introduction, published Thursday. But little attention has been paid to the agent (the gun and ammunition) or the vector (firearm manufacturers, dealers, and the industry lobby).

According to federal data, firearms manufacturing in America tripled between 2000 and 2013 the last year Seigel studied.

In that year alone, manufacturers produced 4.4 million pistols, 4 million rifles, 1.2 million shotguns, 725,000 revolvers and 495,000 miscellaneous firearms, according to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Firearms manufacturing dipped 16 percent the following year to just over 9million produced.

[Manufacturers] have reinvented guns not as a recreational sport or tool but as a symbol of freedom and security, Siegel told ABC News Thursday.

Siegel said the increased manufacturing of high-caliber pistols, especially, points to a consumers growing interest in self-defense and a similar need for a new perspective on gun-related violence as a public health issue, not a criminal justice one.

Ultimately, a better understanding of the products on the market may have implications for improving firearms as consumer products, such as fostering changes in design to increase safety or changes in corporate practices to better protect consumers, as has been done for tobacco products, the report concludes.

Siegel said the study, published last week in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine, doesnt mean to imply gun owners should lose their right to bear arms, but rather society must create an effective way to weed out those more prone to violent acts.

They are not the enemy in public health, he said. There are ways to reduce gun violence while valuing gun owners values. It has been painted too long as mutually exclusive.

Larry Keane, general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, reiterated the organizations long-standing opposition to viewing gun-related violence through a public health lens.

Guns are not a disease, he told ABC News. There is no vaccine or health intervention for the criminal misuse of firearms.

See original here:

Researcher suggests gun related violence prevention, Second ... - Guns.com

Justice Thomas Calls Out The Supreme Court For Not Believing In The Second Amendment – The Libertarian Republic

LISTEN TO TLRS LATEST PODCAST:

By Thomas Phippen

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas had stern words for his colleagues when theCourt declined to hear a case challenging Californias handgun laws, saying that the jurists do not understand the importance of self-defense.

The case, supported by the National Rifle Association, involves San Diego resident Edward Peruta, who challenged his countys refusal to grant him permission to carry a concealed firearm outside of his home.

For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous, Thomaswroteafter most members of the court declined to hear the California case.

But 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, Thomassaid.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Courts newest member, joined Thomas statement on the courts refusal to hear the case, calling the decision by the 9th circuit onPeruta v. San Diegoindefensible.

A case needs to be approved by at least four justices in order to get on the Supreme Courts docket.

The Second Amendments core purpose further supports the conclusion that the right to bear arms extends to public carry, Thomas wrote. Even if other Members of the Court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this important question definitively.

The San Diego County Sheriffs department has very narrow restrictions for concealed carry permits. Only those who can prove they have a regular need for self-defense against a specific threat are granted concealed permits.

The whole point of the Sheriffs policy is to confine concealed-carry licenses to a very narrow subset of law-abiding residents, Perutas attorneys wrote. And because California law prohibits openly carrying a handgun outside the home, the result is that the typical law-abiding resident cannot bear a handgun for self-defense outside the home at all.

Clarence ThomasEdward PerutaNeil GorsuchPeruta v. San DiegoSecond AmendmentSupreme Court

See more here:

Justice Thomas Calls Out The Supreme Court For Not Believing In The Second Amendment - The Libertarian Republic

‘For those of us who work in marbled halls the Second Amendment might seem antiquated’ – Washington Post

From Mondays opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch), dissenting from denial of certiorari in Peruta v. California:

For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But 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.

Agree with it or disagree, but it strikes me as a powerful articulation of its position. (The Court declined to hear the case, and thus left open the question whether the Second Amendment secures a right of law-abiding adults to carry guns outside the home a subject on which lower courts continue to be split; Thomas and Gorsuch were urging the court to hear the case.)

See the rest here:

'For those of us who work in marbled halls the Second Amendment might seem antiquated' - Washington Post

Supreme Court Refuses Case Challenging Second Amendment Rights – TheStreet.com

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to take a case which argued that the Second Amendment entitles ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in some manner, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.

The justices turned away an appeal from gun rights advocates who argued that most law-abiding gun owners in San Diego, Los Angeles, and the San Francisco Bay area are wrongly denied permits to carry a weapon when they leave home.

The refusal to hear the case upholds a ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which held last year that the "Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public."

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the court's action "reflects a distressing trend" in the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch also dissented.

Shares of major gun firms including American Outdoor Brands ( AOBC) andSturm Ruger & Company ( RGR) were falling over 1% during mid-morning trading on Monday.

What's Hot On TheStreet

Unusual to hear these words: Under Armour's (UAA) founder Kevin Plank has never been one to sound weak in a public setting. Plank is known for his motivational speeches to employees and desire to crush all competition. So, it was odd to hear Plank say rival Nike (NKE) "isn't playing fair" on the Today Show on Sunday -- it sounded like a CEO who after several below plan quarters is finally realizing how challenging it will be to dethrone Nike.

More:

Supreme Court Refuses Case Challenging Second Amendment Rights - TheStreet.com

Luther Strange introduces bill to close Obama-era 2nd Amendment loophole – Alabama Today

Taking action to protect Second Amendment rights from unwarranted executive intrusion, Alabama Senator Luther Strangeon Wednesday introduced the Protecting the Second Amendment Act.

The bill would amend the Gun Control Act to nullify generalized, routine, or ongoing reporting requirement on lawful gun owners based on geographic location or sales records of multiple long guns, and prohibit future executive action against them.

The Obama administration demonstrated time and again a disturbing willingness to bypass the separation of powers and disregard Congress as a Constitutional watchdog, explainedStrange. Had the restrictions faced by lawful gun dealers in border states been applied to Alabama, many sportsmen, myself included, would have a difficult time practicing our hobby, and exercising our Constitutional rights. With this bill, I am proud to stand up against existing and future threats to the rights of lawful gun owners, and restore respect for the rule of law.

Under an Obama-era executive order claiming to target the flow of firearms to Mexican drug cartels, gun owners and dealers in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas were subjected to additional reporting requirements on firearms above .22 caliber.

The Protecting the Second Amendment Act has already received support from originalSenate cosponsors, Texas-RepublicansJohn Cornynand Ted Cruz, and is being praised by the National Rifle Association as an important step in rolling back the full extent of Obama administrationsactions against guns.

On behalf of the NRAs five million members, we would like to thank Senator Strange for introducing this important bill that would roll back the Obama administrations defacto gun registration scheme, said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox. Senator Strange continues to be a champion for our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in the U.S. Senate.

For eight long years the Second Amendment was constantly under threat by an Administration hostile to the fundamental right of Americans to defend themselves, addedCornyn. This bill will help roll back unilateral regulations from the last Administration targeting law-abiding gun owners, and Im proud to join Senator Strange in this fight.

Read the original:

Luther Strange introduces bill to close Obama-era 2nd Amendment loophole - Alabama Today

Sullum: The NRA shuns a Second Amendment martyr – The Ledger

By Jacob Sullum Creators Syndicate

Philando Castile did what you are supposed to do if you have a concealed-carry permit and get pulled over by police: He let the officer know he had a gun.

Had Castile been less forthcoming, he would still be alive.

Last Friday, a Minnesota jury acquitted the cop who killed Castile of second-degree manslaughter, demonstrating once again how hard it is to hold police accountable when they use unnecessary force. The verdict also sends a chilling message to gun owners, since Castile is dead because he exercised his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Jeronimo Yanez, an officer employed by the St. Anthony, Minnesota, police department, stopped Castile around 9 p.m. on July 6 in Falcon Heights, a suburb of Minneapolis and St. Paul. The official reason was a nonfunctioning brake light.

The actual reason, according to Yanez, was that Castile resembled a suspect in a convenience store robbery that had happened four days before in the same neighborhood. The full extent of the resemblance was that Castile, like the suspect, was black, wore glasses and dreadlocks, and had a "wide-set nose."

Castile, a 32-year-old cafeteria manager, had nothing to do with the robbery. But in Yanez's mind, Castile posed a threat.

The traffic stop began politely but turned deadly within a minute. Audio and video of the encounter show that Yanez asked for Castile's proof of insurance and driver's license.

After Castile handed over his insurance card, he calmly informed Yanez, "Sir, I have to tell you that I do have a firearm on me." Yanez interrupted him, saying, "OK, don't reach for it, then."

Castile and his girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, who was sitting in the front passenger seat, repeatedly assured the officer that Castile was not reaching for the weapon. But by now Yanez was in full panic mode.

"Don't pull it out!" he screamed, immediately drawing his weapon and firing seven rounds into the car, heedless of Reynolds and her 4-year-old daughter, who was in the backseat. Mortally wounded, Castile moaned and said, "I wasn't reaching for it."

Reynolds, who drew nationwide attention to the shooting by reporting it via Facebook Live immediately afterward, has consistently said Castile was reaching for his wallet to retrieve his driver's license, per Yanez's instructions. Yanez initially said he thought Castile was reaching for his gun; later he claimed to have seen Castile pulling out the pistol, which was found inside a front pocket on the right side of the dead man's shorts.

Yanez clearly acted out of fear. The question is whether that fear was reasonable in the circumstances and whether deadly force was the only way to address it.

Jeffrey Noble, an expert on police procedure, testified that Yanez's actions were "objectively unreasonable." The officer had "absolutely no reason" to view Castile as a robbery suspect, Noble said, and could have mitigated the threat he perceived by telling Castile to put his hands on the dashboard or stepping back from the car window.

If Castile planned to shoot Yanez, why would he announce that he had a firearm? That disclosure was obviously aimed at avoiding trouble but had the opposite effect because Yanez was not thinking clearly.

Officers like Yanez, who is leaving his department under a "voluntary separation agreement," pose a clear and present danger to law-abiding gun owners. Yet the National Rifle Association has been curiously reticent about the case.

The day after the shooting, the NRA said "the reports from Minnesota are troubling and must be thoroughly investigated." It promised "the NRA will have more to say once all the facts are known."

The reports have been investigated, and the facts are known. Yet the NRA has not added anything to the bland, noncommittal statement it made a year ago. You'd think "the nation's largest and oldest civil rights organization" would have more to say about an innocent man who was killed for exercising his Second Amendment rights.

Jacob Sullum (jsullum@reason.com) is a senior editor at Reason magazine. He writes for Creators Syndicate.

Visit link:

Sullum: The NRA shuns a Second Amendment martyr - The Ledger

Triple Homicide Collides with Second Amendment – Santa Barbara Independent

Over the years, Ive developed an insufferable tic that I insist on fobbing off as a bad joke. Upon encountering someone going through seriously bad timescancer diagnosis, dead dog, divorce, child gone crazyI invariably blurt out, Well other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play? In all these years, this has yet to inject a lick of levity. The punchline does not derive from the hilariously improbable notion that Mary Todd Lincolnafflicted with migraines, debilitating depression, racking physical pains, and what was likely a bipolar conditionmight actually have enjoyed anything. The play in question was Our American Cousin, which Mary Todd and her husband, Abraham Lincoln, were watching at Fords Theatre in Washington, D.C., when actor John Wilkes Booth shot and killed the president. Booth waited for the line that always got the loudest laughswhen a lovably loutish American proto-bro type calls a sniffy British dowager a sockdologizing old man-trapbefore aiming at Lincolns head and pulling the trigger. Bootha supporter of the Southern causedid notmiss.

Had Booth had at his disposal a sound suppressor for his pistol at the time, he would not have had to wait for the laughter. And Lincolns widow would not have had to ponder what a sockdologizing old man-trap was. More misogyny hiding behind humor, perhaps? If Booth had a silencer, he no doubt could have escaped. More than 150 years after the fact, another son of the SouthRepublican Congressmember Jeff Duncan from South Carolinahas introduced a bill that would have vastly improved Booths odds. Duncan is the proud author of the Hearing Protection Act, which would expedite and accelerate the sale of gun suppressorsalso known as silencersby exempting them from the additional layer of time-consuming background checks required by the National Firearms Act passed in 1934. According to Duncan, silencers are needed because shooting is notoriously hard on the hearing of those who shoot a lot. He also cites a study showing the number of violent crimes committed by people wielding silenced firearms can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Im sure theyre right about that. Theyre also right when they point outas they like to dothat more Americans are killed with hammers than by rifles. Its also beside thepoint.

Two weeks ago in Judge Brian Hills courtroom, I saw the real point during the triple-homicide trial of a man accused of killing noted Chinese herbalist Dr. Henry Han; his wife, Jennie Yu; and their 5-year-old child, Emily. Eight muffled bullets had been shot into the head of Emily and three each into the heads of her parents. Gruesome forensic photosshowing all 14 bullet entry woundswere splashed bigger than life up on the courtroom wall. This was one of those rare instances in which a silencer had, in fact, been used. The point was to help the killer get away withmurder.

Heres my point: Wearing earplugs and earmuffs significantly reduces hearing damage inflicted by shooting. It does not, however, help killers get away withmurder.

As usual, theres no shortage of grim ironies surrounding this legislation, which was supposed to have had its first committee hearing this past week. From the outset, the timing was awkward, coming on the first-year anniversary of the one-way shootout at the Orlando gay nightclub Pulse, which left 49 dead and 58 seriously wounded. The hearing was only postponed after a rage-addled Bernie Sanders supporter, James T. Hodgkinson, lit up a baseball field in Arlington, Virginia, last weekshooting rapid fire at members of the Republican congressional baseball team practicing for the big game the following night against their Democratic rivals. Just before the 66-year-old Hodgkinson began his rampage, he met none other than South Carolina Congressmember Duncan, author of the Hearing Protection Act, walking off the field. As Duncan and the shooter passed each other, Hodgkinson asked him, Excuse me, sir, whos practicing today? Democrats or Republicans? As Duncan recounted, I said, This is a Republican team, and he said, K, thanks. By the time Hodgkinson was done spraying the field, five people had been seriously wounded, including House Majority Whip SteveScalise.

The shooting has not shaken Duncans belief in the silencer bill. The gunman, Duncan observed blandly, did not use a silencer. Duncan added that Illinois, where Hodkinson is from, has some of the toughest gun control laws in the nation, yet even they failed to stop the allegedshooter.

Should the Hearing Protection Act be approved, it would repeal the outright silencer bans independently enacted by 11 states, most notably California and New York. So much for Southern conservatives passionate belief in states rights. It turns out there are roughly 1.3 million legally registered silencer owners in the United States. Should Duncans bill pass, all records of who own silencers will bedestroyed.

The Hearing Protection Act is part of a broader legislative package known euphoniously as the SHARE Actwhich stands for Sportsmens Heritage and Recreational Enhancement. Duncan is also the author of that. Included in SHARE are provisions to revoke bans on the sale of armor-piercing bullets. SHARE abolishes existing bans on the importation of elephant and polar bear body parts as big-game hunting trophies. It also contains unprecedented new protections for transporting guns and ammo across state lines. Should any law enforcement officer seek to enforce local prohibitions against certain guns or ammo being shipped through their jurisdiction, the officer could be personally sued for so doing. Thats radicalstuff.

The good news? No new date has yet been set for a hearing on the silencerbill.

So other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

See more here:

Triple Homicide Collides with Second Amendment - Santa Barbara Independent

National Ask Day unites Second Amendment supporters and groups calling for stricter gun laws – WTTV CBS4Indy

Please enable Javascript to watch this video

CARMEL, Ind. - Organizations calling for stricter gun laws and Second Amendment supporters united Wednesday for National Ask Day.

The day is put on by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Brady Organization and encourages parents to ask the caretakers of their children's friends if guns are stored safely in the home.

It may sound intrusive, but I think its totally appropriate to say, are there guns in the home? Are those guns locked up? Are they secure?'" gun advocate and founder of The Law Office of Guy A. Relford, Guy Relford, said. "And thats not an anti-gun message.Im the most ardent second amendment supporter there is, but I wouldnt hesitate to ask those questions. Just because I store my guns responsibly that doesnt mean everyone does, and if anyone is offended by that I dont think they are taking the safety of the child as their first priority.

Relford has taught gun safety for more than 20 years to children and adults. He said gun safety is a sometimes a difficult conversation for parents to have with their children, but it shouldn't be.

"I dont put gun safety in any different category than any other kind of safety whether youre talking about swimming pool safety or traffic safety," Relford said. "Your kids won't be under your belt all the time so those kids need to know how to react if they come across a gun."

The Pew Research Center said about a third of homes in America that have kids in them also have gun and a study recently published in the journal, "Pediatrics," found 1,300 children die from a gun-related injury each year.

Read this article:

National Ask Day unites Second Amendment supporters and groups calling for stricter gun laws - WTTV CBS4Indy

Marty Daniel We Have a Pro-Second Amendment President: Now What? – Breitbart News

Yet despite things seemingly going our way, I cant help but keep asking myself one question: Now what?

What should we freedom lovers who believe so strongly in defending our Second Amendment rights do next? Should we rest on our laurels? Or should we continue to fight, while we have the numbers, to not only maintain the status quo but gain back some of the valuable ground weve lost over the years? I strongly believe its the latter, and that maintaining and gaining ground requires a three-pronged approach: (1) keep giving, (2) keep communicating and voting, and (3) keep recruiting.

Keep Giving

Its human nature to figure that, since things seem to be going our way, we dont need to give quite as much money, time, and effort to support the organizations on the front lines of the battle for our Second Amendment rights. In reality, people get comfortable and dont feel their way of life is at risk, so they scale back their contributions. For those that are aware of this, and are willing, we need to dig deeper, and give more to compensate the natural decline.

Im guilty of feeling this way myself. But I know that now, more than ever, organizations like the NRA, the NSSF, and ASA need our support, especially financially. If donations go down, those who seek to curtail our gun rights only gain strength and momentum. So I encourage you all to continue supporting the organizations that do much of the heavy lifting in support of the Second Amendment.

Keep Communicating and Voting

We need to stay vigilant in communicating not only with each other but also with our legislators. Second Amendment supporters now have the pulpit, but if we stop conveying our desires to those who make and enforce our nations laws, we could lose ground even though we hold most of the cards. I implore all of you to stay on top of your legislators and let your voice be heard. Believe me when I tell you the other side will do all they can to make sure their voices, and wishes, dont fall on deaf ears.

We have two bills that should get voted on this year that take back some of the freedoms we have lost over the years: The Hearing Protection Act and the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017. I encourage you to vote for Representatives that support these two bills and to vote against those who do not.

Keep Recruiting

I dont know if recruiting is the best word, but I do know this: Were going to ultimately lose the battle if we dont introduce more people to shootingespecially the younger generation. At age 54, I still vividly recall the day and the experience as a youth, when I took a hunter safety course and got a chance to shoot skeet for the first time. This is an opportunity for you to take someone you know shooting. It will be an experience they will always remember.

Formative experiences like this go a long way toward encouraging younger people to learn about and develop an affinity toward firearms and Second Amendment rights. And its precisely these young people well need to carry on the fight. Along with introducing younger people to shooting, supporting organizations such as the Friends of the NRA, which raises funds for the future of shooting sports, is very important.

Lets not forget the importance of introducing women to shooting. Its definitely something women can, and should, enjoy as well. This is evidenced by my wife, Cindy. She recently told me, I think its important, when introducing a new female shooter into the sport, that they are comfortable with the environment and the trainer, as well as the equipment. Its all part of the experience. Having equipment that best fits the new shooter, a respected and inviting range, and the right people, will make for a better experience.

I would encourage every shooter, male or female; to take a lady shooting and expose them to the activity/sport you enjoy so much yourselves. Maybe even teach them on a suppressed weapon, so they dont react to the bang and the recoil, which the suppressor helps mitigate. We need their support, and getting themas well as our youthaboard ensures the Second Amendment will remain strong. This will also create opportunities the whole family can enjoy.

So remember, the stakes are simply too high to let up. Even though the pendulum seems to be swinging our way at the moment, we need to play to win. Had the Falcons been playing to win-instead of playing not to lose in the second half of the Super Bowl they would be champions today! We have not won this battle. It is only half-time and we must play to win. We have to continue to give and give big; we have to communicate with our legislators and vote for our issues; we must make every effort to recruit and bring new people to the shooting sports. Lets play to win!

Marty Daniel is the president, CEO, and founder of Daniel Defense and a guest columnist for Bullet Points with AWR Hawkins.

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

See the original post:

Marty Daniel We Have a Pro-Second Amendment President: Now What? - Breitbart News

The NRA shuns a Second Amendment martyr – Chicago Sun-Times


Chicago Sun-Times
The NRA shuns a Second Amendment martyr
Chicago Sun-Times
Last Friday, a Minnesota jury acquitted the cop who killed Castile of second-degree manslaughter, demonstrating once again how hard it is to hold police accountable when they use unnecessary force. The verdict also sends a chilling message to gun ...
Disturbing Video Released of Fatal Police Shooting of Philando CastileReason (blog)
Prominent black NRA defender criticizes ruling in Philando Castile caseThe Guardian
Trevor Noah Takes on the NRA's Racist HypocrisyFlavorwire

all 136 news articles »

Excerpt from:

The NRA shuns a Second Amendment martyr - Chicago Sun-Times

Second amendment group opposes lawsuit in Sandy Hook shooting – Danbury News Times

Photo: Cathy Zuraw / Hearst Connecticut Media

Second amendment group opposes lawsuit in Sandy Hook shooting

The Connecticut Citizens Defense League has filed a brief opposing a lawsuit that would hold manufacturers and sellers of the gun used in the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting liable for the crime.

The suit filed by the families of 10 victims argues that makers and distributors of the AR-15-style rifle used in the shooting recklessly marketed it to civilians, ignoring the risks that it would be misused. The suit was thrown out by a lower court, and the families have appealed to have it reinstated.

CCDLs brief against the reinstatement argues that the firearm is 25 percent as powerful as a regular hunting rifle, because it uses lightweight ammunition. It also states that crime statistics show that ordinary handguns are more than 15 times more likely to be used by mass shooters than the model of firearm chosen by Adam Lanza.

If the defendants are held liable in this case, then, it will set a precedent that would expose businesses to legal liability each time they sell virtually any type of firearm in Connecticut, the CCDL news release states.

Read more here:

Second amendment group opposes lawsuit in Sandy Hook shooting - Danbury News Times

After Congressional Baseball Shooting, We Need To Talk About Gun Control – WBUR

wbur Commentary A Capitol Hill Police officer stands watch in Alexandria, Va., Wednesday, June 14, 2017, after a shooting involving House Majority Whip Steve Scalise of La., and others, during a Congressional baseball practice. (Cliff Owen/AP)

Like what you read here? Sign up for our twice-weekly newsletter.

James T. Hodgkinson, who died in a shootout with police Wednesday after wounding Congressman Steve Scalise and four others, apparently had a valid gun license. Whether or not he came by his weapons legally, the tragedy is bound to reopen our gun control debate and the assertion by Second Amendment fundamentalists, contrary to the view of most firearms owners, that gun control is unconstitutional.

They're wrong. I have this on good authority from two expert sources the late Justice Antonin Scalia, and the Founders who wrote the Constitution.

Gun-rights advocates may quote the Second Amendment robotically, but ... they apparently skip over its insistence that any militia be well regulated.

Before his death last year, Scalia was the Supreme Courts conservative brain, devoted to interpreting the founding document with what he saw as the intent of its drafters. Those founding fathersfamously quill-penned 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. So it will pop the bubble wrap in extremists minds to hear that in not allowingrestrictions on firearms, theyve been genuflecting to a myth.

Thats because theyve skated over inconvenient words from both the men who wrote the Constitution and Scalia, their medium.

Start with the latter. Gun control advocates cite his words in District of Columbia v. Heller, which at first blush is odd, since that 2008 case saw the high court uphold an individuals right to bear arms without serving in a state militia. Yet Scalia, writing the majority opinion, declared, Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited, adding that it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on legislated conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms, he wrote. Scalia also OKd restrictions in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings and on felons and the mentally ill.

These categories capture the vast majority of gun laws in America, says UCLA constitutional law professor Adam Winkler. In short, theres plenty of room under the Second Amendment for gun control.

Unnerving as those words will be to people who support fewer restrictions, they might suggest Scalia was an apostate from the Founders views. Uh-uh. Gun-rights advocates may quote the Second Amendment robotically, but, Winkler notes, they apparently skip over its insistence that any militia be well regulated.

Early America lived by that modifier, Fordham University historian Saul Cornell says: For instance, starting in the colonial period, states enacted a variety of safe-storage measures to deal with the danger posed by stored gunpowder. A 1786 law went as far as prohibiting the storage of a loaded gun in any building in Boston. Such laws, including early versions of gun registration, Winkler says, were so restrictive that todays NRA leaders would never support them.

Gun advocates will point out that Hodgkinsons rampage was itself stopped by guns, when police killed him-- glossing over the fact, as they gloss over the Second Amendments inconvenient words and history, that no one objects to trained police with guns.

Of course, the Founders permitted any number of things that would make moderns cringe slavery comes to mind so rights advocates are free to argue that the drafters views on guns were wrong. But they can't cloak extremism with phony Second Amendment protections, and anyway, its hard to come up with a defense for such extremism that passes the giggle test, as Scalias writing attests.

Beyond the restrictions permitted by the Heller opinion, judges spanning the ideological spectrum have upheld other gun controls, such as assault weapon bans. Even legal scholars who disagree with these rulings concede there are a lot of them. Its true that in a culture steeped in gun ownership, laws alone will never be enough to end Americas firearms carnage. Other measures that account for the resilience of that culture will be necessary as well.

But as this weeks atrocity recycles our endless gun control debate, its worth remembering a less familiar point. Those who think the Constitution permits unfettered gun possession should read it first.

Follow Cognoscenti on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for our twice-weekly newsletter.

Rich Barlow Cognoscenti contributor Rich Barlow writes for BU Today, Boston University's news website.

More

See more here:

After Congressional Baseball Shooting, We Need To Talk About Gun Control - WBUR

The Second Amendment & the Right to Bear Arms

At the center of the gun control debate, few things are as hotly disputed in the United States as the Constitution's Second Amendment.

History of the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment provides U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. Ratified in December 1791, the amendment 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.

James Madison originally proposed the Second Amendment shortly after the Constitution was officially ratified as a way to provide more power to state militias, which today are considered the National Guard. It was deemed a compromise between Federalists those who supported the Constitution as it was ratified and the anti-Federalists those who supported states having more power. Having just used guns and other arms to ward off the English, the amendment was originally created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees the inalienable rights of citizens.

Interpretations of the Second Amendment

Since its ratification, Americans have been arguing over the amendment's meaning and interpretation. One side interprets the amendment to mean it provides for collective rights, while the opposing view is that it provides individual rights.

Those who take the collective side think the amendment gives each state the right to maintain and train formal militia units that can provide protection against an oppressive federal government. They argue the "well regulated militia" clause clearly means the right to bear arms should only be given to these organized groups. They believe this allows for only those in the official militia to carry guns legally, and say the federal government cannot abolish state militias.

Those with the opposite viewpoint believe the amendment gives every citizen the right to own guns, free of federal regulations, to protect themselves in the face of danger. The individualists believe the amendment's militia clause was never meant to restrict each citizen's rights to bear arms.

Both interpretations have helped shape the country's ongoing gun control debate. Those supporting an individual's right to own a gun, such as the National Rifle Association, argue that the Second Amendment should give all citizens, not just members of a militia, the right to own a gun. Those supporting stricter gun control, like the Brady Campaign, believe the Second Amendment isn't a blank check for anyone to own a gun. They feel that restrictions on firearms, such as who can have them, under what conditions, where they can be taken, and what types of firearms are available, are necessary.

The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment

While the right to bear arms is regularly debated in the court of public opinion, it is the Supreme Court whose opinion matters most. Yet despite an ongoing public battle over gun ownership rights, until recent years the Supreme Court had said very little on the issue.

The Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C.

One of the first rulings came in 1876 in U.S. v. Cruikshank. The case involved members of the Ku Klux Klan not allowing black citizens the right to standard freedoms, such as the right to assembly and the right to bear arms. As part of the ruling, the court said the right of each individual to bear arms was not granted under the Constitution. Ten years later, the court affirmed the ruling in Presser v. Illinois when it said that the Second Amendment only limited the federal government from prohibiting gun ownership, not the states.

The Supreme Court took up the issue again in 1894 in Miller v. Texas. In this case, Dallas' Franklin Miller sued the state of Texas, arguing that despite state laws saying otherwise, he should have been able to carry a concealed weapon under Second Amendment protection. The court disagreed, saying the Second Amendment does not apply to state laws, like Texas' restrictions on carrying dangerous weapons.

All three of the cases heard before 1900 cemented the court's opinion that the Bill of Rights, and specifically the Second Amendment, does not prohibit states from setting their own rules on gun ownership.

Until recently, the Supreme Court hadn't ruled on the Second Amendment since U.S. v. Miller in 1939. In that case, Jack Miller and Frank Layton were arrested for carrying an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines, which had been prohibited since the National Firearms Act was enacted five years earlier. Miller argued that the National Firearms Act violated their rights under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed, however, saying "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

It would be nearly 70 years before the court took up the issue again, this time in the District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. The case centered on Dick Heller, a licensed special police office in Washington, D.C., who challenged the nation's capital's handgun ban. For the first time, the Supreme Court ruled that despite state laws, individuals who were not part of a state militia did have the right to bear arms. As part of its ruling, the court wrote, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

The court would rule on the issue again two years later as part of McDonald v. City of Chicago, which challenged the city's ban on private handgun ownership. In a similar 5-to-4 ruling, the court affirmed its decision in the Heller case, saying the Second Amendment "applies equally to the federal government and the states."

Despite the recent rulings, the debate on gun control continues. Incidents like those in Aurora, Colo., and Sandy Hook, N.J., only serve as motivation for both sides to have their opinions heard and considered.

Related:

Continue reading here:

The Second Amendment & the Right to Bear Arms