1. Second Amendment

Category Archives: Second Amendment

Federal Court judge shoots down pro-gun group's lawsuit

Posted on by

A pro-gun groups lawsuit seeking to undermine the citys strict gun control laws has been shot down by a Manhattan Federal Court judge.

The NRA-affiliated New York State Pistol and Rifle Association sued the city in 2013, arguing that laws limiting certain licensed handgun owners to carrying their unloaded weapons directly to or from their homes and shooting ranges infringed on their Second Amendment rights.

Judge Robert Sweet said he wasnt buying it last week in a 43-page ruling.

These regulations are reasonable and result from the substantial government interest in public safety, Sweet wrote, citing previous rulings that outside the home, firearms safety interests often outweigh individual interests in self-defense.

The gun group had argued the small number of shooting ranges only eight in the city amounted to a gun ban. Sweet countered that the paucity of gun ranges was simply the free market at work.

There are over 40,000 active handgun licenses in the city, according to court documents.

We are pleased that the city was able to defeat this challenge to our common-sense gun laws that are designed to keep us all safe, said Mayor de Blasios spokeswoman, Marti Adams.

Sweet called the restrictions a minimal, or at most, modest burden on Second Amendment rights. He said the NYPD processes 3,200 new applications and 9,000 renewal applications for handgun licenses yearly. The gun association did not respond or comment.

sbrown@nydailynews.com

The rest is here:

Federal Court judge shoots down pro-gun group's lawsuit

Senate panel asserts state law trumps federal rule

Posted on by

PHOENIX Declaring state law to be above all others, a Senate panel voted Tuesday block federal gun laws they believe violate the Second Amendment, and to punish the city of Tucson for enacting its own restrictions.

The votes were part of a series of actions by the same Senate committee asserting state supremacy, including:

All of the votes, along party lines in the Republican-controlled Committee on Federalism, Mandates and Fiscal Responsibility, were based on arguments that the state has to protect individual rights from being trampled.

Potentially the most far reaching is SB 1384, requiring federal officials to get permission from a county sheriff before taking certain actions. Sen. Judy Burges, R-Sun City West, said it simply recognizes the supremacy of the state over the federal government, and that sheriffs are each countys chief constitutional and law enforcement officer.

SB 1384 would make it illegal for any federal employee, including a law enforcement official who has not been first given permission by the sheriff, to make an arrest, conduct a search or seize property.

Burges said the law is needed because it is a duty of the sheriff to protect and defend the citizens business of his county from any and all abuses of constitutional rights and freedoms, even in the name of law enforcement.

Exceptions are provided for incidents on federal lands or where the officer has witnessed a crime that requires immediate arrest. And it would not apply to customs or Border Patrol officers.

Burges said there are things already happening in Arizona that are potential flash points, including federal agencies closing roads, and in one instance, in Greenlee County, the confiscation of cattle and sale of them at auction in a dispute between the U.S. Forest Service and the rancher.

Burges sees her legislation as a way for the state to fight back against things like the federal government requiring that wolves be accommodated in Arizona something two other committees have voted to spend $250,000 fighting in court.

She said there already are problems with wolves stalking children, and her legislation affirms the right of the sheriff to defend Arizonans, including shooting a wolf without fear of a $50,000 federal fine.

Continued here:

Senate panel asserts state law trumps federal rule

Sources on the Second Amendment and Rights to Keep and …

Posted on by

Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School *

I. Text of the Second Amendment and Related Contemporaneous Provisions II. Calls for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms from State Ratification Conventions III. "The Right of the People" in Other Bill of Rights Provisions IV. Some Other Contemporaneous Constitutional Provisions With a Similar Grammatical Structure V. 18th- and 19th-Century Commentary A. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765) B. St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries (1803) C. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) D. Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880) VI. Supreme Court Cases A. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) B. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 416-17, 449-51 (1857) C. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 551 (1876) D. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 264-66 (1886) E. Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263, 286-87 (1892) F. Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538-39 (1894) G. Dissent in Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 635 (1896) (Field, J., dissenting) H. Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 280 (1897) I. Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 597 (1900) J. Trono v. United States, 199 U.S. 521, 528 (1905) K. Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 98 (1908) L. United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929) M. Dissent in Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 78 (1947) (Black, J., dissenting) N. Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 784 (1950) (Jackson, J., for the majority) O. Knapp v. Schweitzer, 357 U.S. 371, 378 n.5 (1958) (Frankfurter, J., for the majority) P. Konigsberg v. State Bar, 366 U.S. 36, 49 & n.10 (1961) (Harlan, J., for the majority) Q. Dissent in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 149-51 (1972) (Douglas, J., dissenting, joined by Marshall, J.) R. Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 (1980) S. United States v. Verdugo- Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990) T. Casey v. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. 833, 848 (1992) (dictum) U. Concurrence in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 938-939 (1997) (Thomas, J., concurring) V. Dissent in Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., joined by Rehnquist, C.J., and Scalia and Souter, JJ.) VII. Relevant Statutes A. Militia Act of 1792 B. The currently effective Militia Act C. The Freedmen's Bureau Act (1866) D. The Firearms Owners' Protection Act (1986) VIII. Other Materials IX. State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions (Current and Superseded) A. Sorted by state, though including both current and superseded provisions B. Sorted by date, from 1776 to the present

These materials can be useful for discussing how the Second Amendment ought to be interpreted. I intentionally include more materials here than any teacher will likely use, to give people flexibility in picking and choosing.

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.

English Bill of Rights: That the subjects which are protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law (1689). 1

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818). 2

Kentucky: [T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792). 3

Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence (1780). 4

North Carolina: [T]he people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power (1776). 5

Continued here:

Sources on the Second Amendment and Rights to Keep and ...

Job protection for gays clears Senate hurdle

Posted on by

CHEYENNE - The Wyoming Senate on Monday approved second reading of a bill that would extend workplace and other anti-discrimination protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Senate File 115 was approved after consideration of several new amendments to the bill.

The first, sponsored by Sen. Larry Hicks, R-Baggs, would have added creed, disability, political affiliation, economic status, ethnic background and ancestry to the protected classes afforded under SF 115. It also would have struck the "gender" in gender identity and replaced it with "sex," with Hicks arguing the two terms are interchangeable and the change would make the language consistent with the rest of Wyoming statutes.

But the bill's key sponsor, Sen. Chris Rothfuss, D-Laramie, noted that the purpose of the bill is to exclusively address discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

While he appreciated what Hicks was attempting to do, he suggested the amendment overreached, given the bill's intent. "In my reading, it's outside the scope," he said.

"It's a little too broad for what the bill title indicates," Rothfuss said.

Sen. Michael Von Flatern, R-Gillette, agreed, adding that Hicks' amendment covered a lot of ground that already exists elsewhere in Wyoming statute.

Senate President Phil Nicholas, R-Laramie, ruled that the amendment was not germane to the bill, and it was subsequently withdrawn.

The second amendment to the bill, offered by Senate Vice President Drew Perkins, R-Casper, sought to rework his previous amendment, which was approved on the bill's first reading.

The amendment sought to expand the list of organizations that would be exempt from SF 115, going beyond religious organizations to include nonprofit "expressive associations" whose primary purpose or function "are grounded in religious teachings."

Excerpt from:

Job protection for gays clears Senate hurdle

Washingtons Sheenas Law presented to committee – Tue, 10 Feb 2015 PST

Posted on by

OLYMPIA Family and friends of a woman killed by her husband at a Spokane hospital last July tried to make it clear Monday they are not anti-gun. They arepro-warning.

Although a gun-rights group questioned whether Sheena Hendersons law would infringe on the Second Amendment, her father Gary Kennison said the proposal has nothing to do with taking guns away from people. Instead, its about letting family members know when a person who may be suffering from mental health issues or was accused of domestic violence gets their guns back from policecustody.

Sheena Henderson was killed by

You have viewed 20 free articles or blogs allowed within a 30-day period. FREE registration is now required for uninterrupted access.

S-R Media, The Spokesman-Review and Spokesman.com are happy to assist you. Contact Customer Service by email or call 800-338-8801

OLYMPIA Family and friends of a woman killed by her husband at a Spokane hospital last July tried to make it clear Monday they are not anti-gun. They arepro-warning.

Although a gun-rights group questioned whether Sheena Hendersons law would infringe on the Second Amendment, her father Gary Kennison said the proposal has nothing to do with taking guns away from people. Instead, its about letting family members know when a person who may be suffering from mental health issues or was accused of domestic violence gets their guns back from policecustody.

Sheena Henderson was killed by her husband, Christopher Henderson, last July. Christopher had been evaluated by law enforcement as a potential suicide risk less than 24 hours earlier, but after he had been cleared by Spokane Valley officers, he retrieved a gun from the Spokane Police Department that had been seized during an earlier suicide attempt; he went to Deaconess where Sheena worked, fatally shot her, then killedhimself.

The family assumed the gun was still in police custody, said Kennison, who was at the Spokane County Courthouse trying to get a restraining order that would have kept Christopher away from Sheena and allowed Deaconess to bar him from the area where she worked. Had I been notified that his gun had been retrieved, she would have been standing beside me at thecourthouse.

The proposed law would set up a three-day waiting period for the return of a gun seized under certain circumstances, and family notification that the return has beenrequested.

Continue reading here:

Washingtons Sheenas Law presented to committee - Tue, 10 Feb 2015 PST

Alan Gottlieb: Smart guns at odds with the Second Amendment – Video

Posted on by


Alan Gottlieb: Smart guns at odds with the Second Amendment
Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, spoke with Guns.com last week about smart gun tech and why he thinks gun control advocates are using it...

By: Gunscom

Read more from the original source:

Alan Gottlieb: Smart guns at odds with the Second Amendment - Video

Protects Second Amendment

Posted on by

Wow! In his letter Re-election over safety , Gene Watson of Moon sounds like your typical left-wing anti-Second Amendment ranter who speaks without knowing the facts.

I am sure that Rep. Mustio was not motivated by the NRA and other gun nuts. All Act 192 covers is protection for all law-abiding citizens against local municipalities enacting restrictive prohibitions in violation of the Second Amendment of our U.S. Constitution.

Gilbert Dadowski

Moon

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

The rest is here:

Protects Second Amendment

The Meaning of the Words in the Second Amendment

Posted on by

The Meaning of the Words in the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment:

Militia

The federal government can use the militia for the following purposes as stated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:

For a definition of today's militia as defined, by statute, in the United States Code, click here.

A militia is always subject to federal, state, or local government control. A "private" militia or army not under government control could be considered illegal and in rebellion, and as a result subject to harsh punishment. (See Macnutt, Karen L., Militias, Women and Guns Magazine, March, 1995.)

Some argue that since the militias are "owned," or under the command of the states, that the states are free to disarm their militia if they so choose, and therefore of course no individual right to keep arms exists. The Militia is not "owned," rather it is controlled, organized, et. cetera, by governments. The federal government as well as the states have no legitimate power to disarm the people from which militias are organized. Unfortunately, few jurists today hold this view. (See Reynolds, Glen Harlan, A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment, 62 Tenn. L. Rev. 461-511 [1995].)

A brief summary of early U.S. militia history.

Well Regulated

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

More here:

The Meaning of the Words in the Second Amendment

Texas lawmaker joining E. Texas leaders to announce concealed carry reciprocity legislation

Posted on by

TYLER, TX (KLTV) - A Texas lawmaker says Second Amendment rights shouldn't stop at state lines. Senator John Cornyn is joining East Texas leaders and Second Amendment rights advocates Saturday to announce proposed legislation that would allow Texans with a concealed handgun license to carry legally in other states.

I think it's actually kind of a common sense provision, says gun rights advocate Dr. Scott Lieberman.

Senator Cornyn wants CHL holders to be able to protect themselves when they travel to other states.

You'd like to think that what's legal in one state should be legal in another state, says Dr. Lieberman.

Some states just don't recognize Texas' CHL, but Senator Cornyn's proposed Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act would fix that by requiring states to honor any other states' concealed carry permits.

Some people can be licensed to carry in one state, but when they cross the border they become a criminal, says Dr. Lieberman.

He says it's a lot like a driver's license.

You're licensed to drive in one state and you cross the border, you want to be able to keep on driving. I think it's the same thing for a concealed carry. If you're able to defend yourself in one state, it should be common sense that you should be able to defend yourself in any state, he explains.

Dr. Lieberman says it's also a balance between the Second Amendment and states' rights.

All the states became members of the United States by agreeing to certain principles. Those principles were outlined and agreed upon by all of these states in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. So, fundamental to being one of the states is accepting the Bill of Rights and ergo the Second Amendment, he says.

Read the rest here:

Texas lawmaker joining E. Texas leaders to announce concealed carry reciprocity legislation

Arizona Republicans push series of gun owners' rights bills

Posted on by

PHOENIX -- Republicans in the Arizona Legislature are pushing a series of bills that would ensure gun owners' rights to sell and transfer firearms at gun shows, bring guns into public places and protect owners from having their weapons taken.

Arizona already has some of the strongest Second Amendment protections in the country, including the right to carry a concealed weapon without a permit and sell firearms at gun shows without a permit or background check. But Republicans in the House of Representatives said new laws will further protect those rights.

The House Military and Public Safety Committee passed House Bill 2527 in a 5-3 vote Thursday. Rep. Anthony Kern, R-Glendale, said the bill would add the word "transfer" to an existing law so only the state legislature can regulate the transfer of firearms, in addition to storage and possession.

"There's no harm in that. I think it just adds to the rights of the second amendment," Kern said.

However, Sen. David Bradley, D-Tucson, said communities should be able to craft their own laws based on the Constitution.

"It's funny because sometimes we talk about local control, and when it's not convenient we view this as a restraint on Second Amendment rights," he said.

The House Military and Public Safety Committee delayed action on two other proposals, which representatives based on similar bills that Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed last session.

House Bill 2509 would make it a crime to take control of a person's legally owned firearm, except in the case of police officers and people whose "conduct is justified."

House Bill 2320 is designed to let concealed carry permit holders take their weapons into public buildings. Republican Rep. Brenda Barton said the bill honors people who have concealed carry permits by expanding the number of public places where they can take firearms.

Last week the committee passed House Bill 2300, which would allow former or current city, county and state prosecutors to carry concealed firearms in any jurisdiction.

Go here to see the original:

Arizona Republicans push series of gun owners' rights bills

New bill allows concealed carry without permit

Posted on by

A bill introduced in the House would allow any law-abiding Idahoan the right to carry a concealed weapon without a permit.

A quick look at the Second Amendment shows no requirement for a permit to carry a gun. Greg Pruett thinks there's something to that.

"The Second Amendment is our carrying permit," he said. Pruett is the founder of Idaho Second Amendment Alliance, a lobbying group that promotes gun rights.

He introduced a bill today that would not require a permit for Idahoans to carry a concealed weapon.

"In the state of Idaho you can already open carry without a permit, said Pruett. All we're doing is saying 'Hey, concealed carry ought to be the same.'"

The bill wouldn't change laws concerning guns on campus - an enhanced conceal carry permit would still be needed.

At Forward Movement Training Center - where dozens of Idahoans learn to properly use guns - the news comes with mixed reaction.

"There's a huge liability that I think a lot of people don't realize or think through when they strap on a firearm," said Matt Schneider, owner of Forward Movement.

The outfit stresses the need to properly train with guns, utilizing a state of the art simulator that forces gun carriers to respond to potential real-world scenarios.

"That training is a critical piece, said Schneider. The time to make mistakes is in training the time to make a mistake is not in the real world."

Excerpt from:

New bill allows concealed carry without permit

'I think we just recognized gay marriage,' lawmaker says after amendment to gun permit bill

Posted on by

LINCOLN Granting military spouses the right to carry concealed handguns in Nebraska triggered a debate over gay marriage Tuesday in the Nebraska Legislature.

Current law allows nonresident military members to apply for a concealed gun permit without having to first live in Nebraska for 180 days to establish residency. A bill advanced from the first round of debate on a 37-4 vote would waive the residency period for military spouses who want to apply for gun permits.

Sen. Paul Schumacher of Columbus, however, questioned whether the bill would allow same-sex spouses to obtain gun permits given Nebraskas constitutional ban on gay marriage. He proposed an amendment so the gun privilege would apply to anyone receiving the federal benefits of a military spouse.

The Department of Defense extended benefits to same-sex spouses in 2013 following a U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Is not the Second Amendment sex blind? Color blind? Schumacher said. What great evil would come from saying a partner of somebody in the military is entitled to exercise their Second Amendment rights to carry a concealed weapon in this state?

The amendment was adopted by a vote of 38-0.

Sen. John Murante of Gretna, who did not vote for or against the bill, expressed concern that the Schumacher amendment could be used to challenge Nebraskas ban on same-sex marriage.

I think we just recognized gay marriage, he said moments after the vote. We are now using the federal governments standard for who receives marriage benefits.

Sen. Dave Bloomfield of Hoskins, who sponsored the measure, said he does not think the amendment language will open up the states marriage law to attack. The state constitution definitively says gay marriage is not recognized within Nebraskas borders, he added.

The forms that a gun permit applicant fill out ask nothing about the gender of an applicants spouse, Bloomfield said.

See the original post:

'I think we just recognized gay marriage,' lawmaker says after amendment to gun permit bill


  1. Second Amendment