The Second Amendment Won in Washington; Why Won’t the Supreme Court Enforce It? – Patriot Post

The Right Opinion

Washington, DC, residents, you dont have to holster your Second Amendment rights anymore. Unfortunately, residents of many other states like California dont have the same ability that DC residents now do to protect themselves.

In a stirring victory for those who live in the nationals capital, a panel of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals recently threw out a DC ordinance that denied concealed carry permits to anyone who could not show a special need for self-defense, what is referred to as a good reason requirement. The problem is that other courts of appeal have upheld such restrictive laws and the U.S. Supreme Court has turned down appeals of those decisions, refusing to take up the issue of the Second Amendments application to carrying a weapon outside of the home.

This happened most recently at the very end of the Supreme Courts 2017 term in June when it refused to take upPeruta v. California,an appeal of a decision of the Ninth Circuit upholding Californias good reason requirement.

In a scathing dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Neil Gorsuch) castigated the other justices for treating the Second Amendment as a disfavored right.”He said it was long-past time for the Court to decide this issue and that he found it “extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen.

In theopinionover the District of Columbias concealed carry law written by Judge Thomas Griffith of the DC Circuit, Griffith pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Courts first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment occurred in 2008 inDistrict of Columbia v. Heller, where the Court threw out DCs complete ban on handguns as unconstitutional.

That decision is younger than the first iPhone. The Supreme Court did not outline how the Second Amendment applies to the carrying of a weapon in public, but as Griffith says,Hellerreveals the Second Amendment erects some absolute barriers than no gun law may breach.

AfterHeller,DC implemented a complete ban on concealed carry. That was struck down in 2014 inPalmer v. District of Columbia. DC responded by restricting concealed carry permits only to those who could show a good reason to fear injury. That required showing a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community as supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks.

Living in a high-crime neighborhoodwasnta good enough reason for a concealed carry permit under DCs regulation. In essence, you had to prove you had a good reason to exercise your constitutional right, a bizarre situation unique in American constitutional jurisprudence.

DC argued, absurdly enough, that its ordinance did not violate any constitutional right because the Second Amendment doesnt apply outside of the home.

Judge Griffith dismissed this claim, saying that the fact that the need for self-defense is most pressing in the home doesnt mean that self-defense at home is the only right at the [Second] Amendments core.

Obviously, the need for self-defense might arise beyond as well as within the home. Further, the Second Amendments text protects the right to bear as well as keep arms. Thus, it is natural that the core of the Second Amendment includes a law-abiding citizens right to carry common firearms for self-defense beyond the home.

Even underHeller, governments can apply regulations on the possession and carrying of firearms that are longstanding, such as bans on possession by felons or bans on carrying near sensitive sites such as government buildings. But preventing carrying in public is not a longstanding tradition or rule.

This opinion goes into detail discussing the long American and English history applicable to weapons and self-defense, going back as far as the Statute of Northampton of 1328 whose text, as the court says, will remind Anglophiles of studying Canterbury Tales in the original. But the state of the law in Chaucers England or for that matter Shakespeares or Cromwells is not decisive here.

What is decisive is that the Supreme Court established inHellerthat by the time of the Founding, the preexisting right enshrined by the Amendment had ripened to include carrying more broadly than the District contends based on its reading of the 14th-century statute. According to Griffith, The individual right to carry common firearms beyond the home for self-defense even in densely populated areas, even for those lacking special self-defense needs falls within the core of the Second Amendments protections.

Unfortunately, other federal courts of appeals have upheld similar good reason laws for concealed carry permits. But as Judge Griffith points out, those courts dispensed with the historic digging that would have exposed that their toleration of regulations restricting the carrying of a weapon is faulty.

The constitutional analysis that should be applied to all government gun regulations is that they must allow gun access at least for each typical member of the American public. Because DCs restrictive good reason concealed carry law bars most people from exercising their Second Amendment right at all, it is unconstitutional. At a minimum, the Second Amendment must protect carrying given the risks and needs typical of law-abiding citizens.

The court drew together all the pieces of its analysis in this way:

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. These traditional limits include, for instance, licensing requirements, but not bans on carrying in urban areas like D.C. or bans on carrying absent a special need for self-defense. In fact, the Amendments core at a minimum shields the typically situated citizens ability to carry common arms generally. The Districts good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on exercises of that constitutional right for most D.C. residents. Thats enough to sink this law under Heller I.

One of the judges on the DC panel, Karen LeCraft Henderson, dissented, arguing that the core right in the Second Amendment is only to possess a firearm in ones home and she saw no problem with DCs good-reason requirement.

That dissent, along with the contrary decisions of other appeals courts, shows why the Supreme Court needs to follow Justice Thomass admonition and finally settle this issue. As Thomas scolds in his dissent inPeruta:

For those of us who work in marble 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.

Republished from The Heritage Foundation.

Continue reading here:

The Second Amendment Won in Washington; Why Won’t the Supreme Court Enforce It? – Patriot Post

Historic Battle of Athens Shows Importance of Second Amendment – Newsmax

Some American political and human events in history are intentionally overlooked by those responsible for teaching and analyzing them.

The nation rightfully celebrates the civil rights movement and the March on Selma. Our children are taught about womens suffrage and Susan B Anthony. The left loves to evoke memories of the Vietnam antiwar demonstrations. Modern day movements such as gay and transgender rights, the Womens March, and the Occupy movements are celebrated in the media.

How many of you have ever heard about the major event that occurred in our country that shows the importance of your Second Amendment rights? The “Battle of Athens” was the perfect example of why our founding fathers were so brilliant as to include “the right to keep and bear arms” in our Constitution.

On August 1, 1946, there was a primary election in McMinn County, Tennessee. The two major towns in the county are Athens and Etowah. Political corruption and election fraud were concerns of the local citizens. The United States Department of Justice even investigated the allegations in the three elections prior. During those elections, most of McMinn Countys young men were off fighting World War II. There was even an incident where two servicemen home on leave were shot and killed by the sheriffs deputies.

At the end of the war, approximately 3,000 experienced veterans returned to McMinn County. The GIs had known about the troubles back home, even while fighting overseas. They were not happy about what had been going on. They organized and actually put forth an “all G.I.” political ticket for the primary. These ex-servicemembers promised fair elections and ballot counts.

In response, the local sheriff brought in 200 armed deputies. Poll observers, mostly GIs, were intimidated and beaten. One poll watcher was even shot. Multiple other incidents occurred and the sheriff decided to take the ballot boxes to the jail for counting.

Not trusting the sheriff, the local veterans gathered firearms and ammunition. After organizing and planning, they surrounded the jail. There was many exchanges of gun fire. Sometime during the early morning hours of August 2, the GIs made their move. Using dynamite to damage the building, they forced the surrender of those inside. The GIs posted guards to secure the ballots. When the votes were counted, the corrupt officials had been voted out.

I encourage you to research and share this event as a celebration and illustration of law-abiding American citizens using our Constitutionally-protected firearms for the betterment of our society and protection of our freedom.

The Battle of Athens is a major event in American history that is wrongly ignored by our educational system, our media, and our government officials. That alone should demonstrate why we Second Amendment supporters should hold the event up for all to see.

Use the Battle of Athens as an example to show your children what free men should be willing to do to protect that freedom.

Use the Battle of Athens to demonstrate to the media why gun control is antithetical to the Constitution and our freedoms.

Use the Battle of Athens to let our leaders know that we are in charge.

John Cylc is an eight year U.S. Army veteran. He is also a contributor to LifeZette. To read more of his reports Click Here Now.

2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Go here to see the original:

Historic Battle of Athens Shows Importance of Second Amendment – Newsmax

The Second Amendment has won (again) in Washington. So why … – Fox News

Washington, D.C. residents, you dont have to holster your Second Amendment rights anymore. Unfortunately, residents of many other states like California dont have the same ability that D.C. residents now do to protect themselves.

In a stirring victory for those who live in the nationals capital, a panel of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals recently threw out a D.C. ordinance that denied concealed-carry permits to anyone who could not show a special need for self-defense, what is referred to as a good reason requirement. The problem is that other courts of appeal have upheld such restrictive laws and the U.S. Supreme Court has turned down appeals of those decisions, refusing to take up the issue of the Second Amendments application to carrying a weapon outside of the home.

This happened most recently at the very end of the Supreme Courts 2017 term in June when it refused to take up Peruta v. California, an appeal of a decision of the Ninth Circuit upholding Californias good reason requirement.

In a scathing dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Neil Gorsuch) castigated the other justices for treating the Second Amendment as a disfavored right. He said it was long-past time for the Court to decide this issue and that he found it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen.

In the opinion over the District of Columbias concealed carry law written by Judge Thomas Griffith of the D.C. Circuit, Griffith pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Courts first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment occurred in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, where the Court threw out D.C.s complete ban on handguns as unconstitutional.

That decision is younger than the first iPhone. The Supreme Court did not outline how the Second Amendment applies to the carrying of a weapon in public, but as Griffith says, Heller reveals the Second Amendment erects some absolute barriers than no gun law may breach.

After Heller, D.C. implemented a complete ban on concealed carry. That was struck down in 2014 in Palmer v. District of Columbia. D.C. responded by restricting concealed-carry permits only to those who could show a good reason to fear injury. That required showing a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community as supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks.

Living in a high-crime neighborhood wasnt a good enough reason for a concealed-carry permit under D.C.s regulation. In essence, you had to prove you had a good reason to exercise your constitutional right, a bizarre situation unique in American constitutional jurisprudence.

D.C. argued, absurdly enough, that its ordinance did not violate any constitutional right because the Second Amendment doesnt apply outside of the home.

Judge Griffith dismissed this claim, saying that the fact that the need for self-defense is most pressing in the home doesnt mean that self-defense at home is the only right at the [Second] Amendments core.

Obviously, the need for self-defense might arise beyond as well as within the home. Further, the Second Amendments text protects the right to bear as well as keep arms. Thus, it is natural that the core of the Second Amendment includes a law-abiding citizens right to carry common firearms for self-defense beyond the home.

Even under Heller, governments can apply regulations on the possession and carrying of firearms that are longstanding, such as bans on possession by felons or bans on carrying near sensitive sites such as government buildings. But preventing carrying in public is not a longstanding tradition or rule.

This opinion goes into detail discussing the long American and English history applicable to weapons and self-defense, going back as far as the Statute of Northampton of 1328 — whose text, as the court says, will remind Anglophiles of studying Canterbury Tales in the original. But the state of the law in Chaucers England or for that matter Shakespeares or Cromwells is not decisive here.

What is decisive is that the Supreme Court established in Heller that by the time of the Founding, the preexisting right enshrined by the Amendment had ripened to include carrying more broadly than the District contends based on its reading of the 14th-century statute. According to Griffith, the individual right to carry common firearms beyond the home for self-defense even in densely populated areas, even for those lacking special self-defense needs falls within the core of the Second Amendments protections.

Unfortunately, other federal courts of appeals have upheld similar good reason laws for concealed carry permits. But as Judge Griffith points out, those courts dispensed with the historic digging that would have exposed that their toleration of regulations restricting the carrying of a weapon is faulty.

The constitutional analysis that should be applied to all government gun regulations is that they must allow gun access at least for each typical member of the American public. Because D.C.s restrictive good reason concealed-carry law bars most people from exercising their Second Amendment right at all, it is unconstitutional. At a minimum, the Second Amendment must protect carrying given the risks and needs typical of law-abiding citizens.

The court drew together all the pieces of its analysis in this way:

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. These traditional limits include, for instance, licensing requirements, but not bans on carrying in urban areas like D.C. or bans on carrying absent a special need for self-defense. In fact, the Amendments core at a minimum shields the typically situated citizens ability to carry common arms generally. The Districts good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on exercises of that constitutional right for most D.C. residents. Thats enough to sink this law under Heller I.

One of the judges on the D.C. panel, Karen LeCraft Henderson, dissented, arguing that the core right in the Second Amendment is only to possess a firearm in ones home and she saw no problem with D.C.s good-reason requirement.

That dissent, along with the contrary decisions of other appeals courts, shows why the Supreme Court needs to follow Justice Thomass admonition and finally settle this issue. As Thomas scolds in his dissent in Peruta:

For those of us who work in marble 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.

Hans A. von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and former Justice Department official. He is coauthor of Whos Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk.

See original here:

The Second Amendment has won (again) in Washington. So why … – Fox News

Collins proposes new measures for protecting Second Amendment rights – Wyoming County Free Press

Congressman Chris Collins (NY-27) has proposed new measures for protecting Second Amendment rights by introducing legislation to limit states authority when it comes to regulating rifles and shotguns, commonly used by sportsmen and sportswomen.

The Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA) would prevent states from implementing any regulations on these weapons that are more restrictive than what is required by federal law. Upon passage of this bill, most of the language included in New York States Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act of 2013 signed into law by Gov. Andrew Cuomo would be void.

This legislation would protect the Second Amendment rights of New Yorkers that were unjustly taken away by Andrew Cuomo,Collins said.I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment and have fought against all efforts to condemn these rights. I stand with the law-abiding citizens of this state that have been outraged by the SAFE Act and voice my commitment to roll back these regulations.

Governor Cuomos SAFE Act violates federal regulation and the following provisions would be void under the proposed legislation:

-Cuomos SAFE Act expanded rifle and shotgun bans to include semi-automatic guns with detachable magazines that possess certain features.

-The Cuomo SAFE Act banned the capacity of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.It further limited magazines to seven rounds at any time.

In the Collins bill, States or local governments would not be able to regulate, prohibit, or require registration and licensing (that are any more restrictive under Federal law) for the sale, manufacturing, importation, transfer, possession, or marketing of a rifle or shotgun. Additionally, rifle or shotgun includes any part of the weapon including any detachable magazine or ammunition feeding devise and any type of pistol grip or stock design.

Under this legislation, any current or future laws enacted by a state or political subdivision that exceeds federal law for rifles and shotguns would be void. Should a state violate this law, and a plaintiff goes to court, the court will award the prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorneys fee in addition to any other damages.

Congressman Collins was joined today by local, county, and state elected officials and citizen supporters of the Second Amendment during events to unveil his bill in Erie and Monroe counties.

Hamburg Rod and Gun Club:

Assemblyman David DiPietro

Erie County Sheriff Tim Howard

Erie County Comptroller Stefan Mychajliw

Erie County Legislator Ted Morton

Representatives from SCOPE

Rochester Brooks Gun Club:

Senator Rich Funke

Senator Rob Ortt

Assemblyman Peter Lawrence

Monroe County Legislator Karla Boyce

Representatives from SCOPE

To read the text of H.R. 3576, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act, clickhere.

Read the original:

Collins proposes new measures for protecting Second Amendment rights – Wyoming County Free Press

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

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

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

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

Indiana AG: Citizens Don’t Forfeit 4th Amendment Rights When … – 93.1 WIBC Indianapolis (blog)

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)

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

Police Threaten Second Amendment, Raid Wrong Home, Shoot … – National Review

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

NRA-ILA | Appeals Court Schools D.C. on Heller’s Meaning … – NRA ILA

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

Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution – Index Page

Quick Links: FAQTopicsForumsDocumentsTimelineKidsVermont ConstitutionMapCitation Amendment 2 – Right to Bear Arms

>

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.

Notes for this amendment: Proposed 9/25/1789 Ratified 12/15/1791 Note

>

Web site designed and maintained by Steve Mount. 1995-2010 by Craig Walenta. All rights reserved. Contact the Webmaster. Site Bibliography. How to cite this site. Please review our privacy policy. Last Modified: 24 Jan 2010 Valid HTML 4.0

URL: //www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am2.html

View original post here:

Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution – Index Page

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

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 Wilson Times (subscription)

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)

Mo Brooks: ‘Second Amendment’ | Campaign 2018 – Washington Post


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

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

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

DC Circuit upholds right to bear arms for DC residents – 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

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

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

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

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)

NRA-ILA | Court Strikes Down Unconstitutional Ban on Concealed … – NRA ILA

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

Brooks airs new ad touting Second Amendment support | Local … – Times Daily

HUNTSVILLE U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Huntsville, has released a new advertisement emphasizing his support of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.

Brooks’ support of the Second Amendment was not swayed by a June 14 shooting at a congressional baseball game practice in Alexandria, Virginia. Five people were wounded, including U.S. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise.

Brooks was asked about his support of gun rights after the shooting.

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

More:

Brooks airs new ad touting Second Amendment support | Local … – Times Daily