GUNS: Amendment words to fight over

Posted on by

Posted: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 12:00 am

GUNS: Amendment words to fight over

There is a very well written discussion on the Second Amendment in Wikipedia. The Second Amendment states, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment was adopted on Dec. 15, 1791. In United States v. Miller (1939) the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. This would make it a collective right, not an individual right. Then in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court held that the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.

It seems to me for the court to conclude people have an individual right to firearms, they would have to also conclude that an association with a militia is not necessary even though the language of the Second Amendment expressly ties that right to an association with a militia and not just any militia, but a well regulated militia. This controversy is not over.

BRUCE HANSEN

Coeur dAlene

Posted in Letters to editor on Wednesday, April 30, 2014 12:00 am.

Read the original:

GUNS: Amendment words to fight over

Gun lobby group receives open government award

Posted on by

Washington Coalition for Open Government has bestowed a Key Award on the Second Amendment Foundation, Bellevue-based linchpin of the gun-rights lobby in Washington state.

Seattle Police Sgt. Paul Gracy carries a military surface to air missile launcher that was brought to the Seattle gun buyback event . (Joshua Trujillo/seattlepi.com)

The WCOG award recognizes groups that do something notable to advance the cause of open government.

The Second Amendment Foundation was honored for forcing the City of Seattle to acknowledge that it did not fully comply with the states public records law during Mayor Mike McGinns gun-buyback program.

The award was presented Tuesday to Second Amendment Foundation leader Alan Gottlieb by WCOG leader Toby Nixon, a former Republican state representative.

The Second Amendment Foundation won a $38,000 settlement in which the city acknowledged it had failed to disclose all relevant information in response to a request. The city said it did so unintentionally and promised to improve its record keeping.

The gun-rights group not only won gold but struck gold, since one missing document was a letter in which Washington Ceasefire the states leading gun-safety group told the city that gun buybacks were of little value.

The gun buyback was a city response to the murder of 20 first-graders at a Newtown, Connecticut school. McGinn and the Seattle Police Department collected 756 guns on a raw January day. As the buyback was going on, however,a kind of gun bazaar operated for blocks around the sale site, with signs offering to buy and sell firearms.

Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles: Recognizing the Second Amendment Foundation with a major award seems over the top.

The Second Amendment Foundation acted swiftly and properly to hold the mayors office accountable for the incomplete response to a legitimate public records request, Nixon said in a statement.

Continued here:

Gun lobby group receives open government award

Common sense calls for repeal of second amendment

Posted on by

I dont believe the Second Amendment was ever intended to support the kind of gun craziness we contend with today, but since its always used to ward off any common-sense gun reforms, maybe we ought to just fix the Constitution and be done with it.

Yes, I know the odds against that are immense, but maybe we could start by nibbling away at the idea that the Constitution is infallible or that the founders had the answers to everything. They were smart men but neither perfect nor prescient.

One of the ways they showed how smart they were, was that they made a document that could be updated when it needed to be, and today it needs to be on this issue.

Weve had another of those disturbing clusters of shootings in Seattle the past week, and gun violence continues to injure and kill across the country in public, and frequently private, ways. Most gun deaths are suicides.

But some Americans embrace their guns even more tightly even as the headlines call out for sanity. You know what Im talking about.

Last week. Georgias governor signed into law a guns everywhere bill allowing residents of the state to carry guns anywhere in public, schools, churches, bars. You just never know when youll need to shoot someone.

We are already plagued by stand-your-ground laws and now this.

The law was deemed necessary partly because some cities and towns ban guns in most public places, which might seem reasonable if you want to cut down on gun violence, but Georgias leaders believed the answer was more people with more guns. I dont even think its politics anymore. Its a religion all its own.

Did you see the story earlier this week about a gun seller being threatened by gun lovers for trying to market a safer handgun? Belinda Padilla is CEO of the U.S. division of German firearms maker Armatix. Her company is marketing a biometric handgun that wont fire unless it is held by its owner, who has to be wearing a wristwatch that communicates with the gun.

The company wants to sell guns, not ban them, but gun lovers worry elected officials would say, gosh, maybe if every gun was safe like this, thered be fewer criminals shooting people with stolen guns. Thinking like that might lead to laws making it illegal to sell any other kind of gun, thereby depriving Americans of their accustomed freedom to more easily thwart law enforcement.

Read more from the original source:

Common sense calls for repeal of second amendment

Opposition To Proposed Monitoring Of Hate Speech By Federal Agency The Kelly File – Video

Posted on by


Opposition To Proposed Monitoring Of Hate Speech By Federal Agency The Kelly File
Opposition To Proposed Monitoring Of Hate Speech By Federal Agency - The Kelly File What Happened To The First Amendment? =========================================== **Please Click Below...

By: Mass Tea Party

Read the original post:

Opposition To Proposed Monitoring Of Hate Speech By Federal Agency The Kelly File - Video

America was just defeated from within TODAY 4/29/2014 – Martial law is next – Video

Posted on by


America was just defeated from within TODAY 4/29/2014 - Martial law is next
We Just forfeited the FIRST Amendment and it was done by those who most need it and want it, Minorities. Because you insist on taking away the free Speech of one racist man, you will thereby...

By: David Vose

Originally posted here:

America was just defeated from within TODAY 4/29/2014 - Martial law is next - Video

Retaining Government Power to Make Economic Policy for Internet Access: Role of the First Amendment – Video

Posted on by


Retaining Government Power to Make Economic Policy for Internet Access: Role of the First Amendment
Visit: http://www.uctv.tv/) High-speed Internet access providers claim that government-imposed limitations on their activities raise serious constitutional concerns. But given the current...

By: University of California Television (UCTV)

See original here:

Retaining Government Power to Make Economic Policy for Internet Access: Role of the First Amendment - Video

Former Supreme Court Justice Wants to Amend the Constitution

Posted on by

Apr 30, 2014 1:43pm

In his first appearance in front of Capitol Hill lawmakers in nearly 30 years, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens made a pitch today for a new amendment to the Constitution.

Neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit the Congress or any state from imposing reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns, Stevens said in front of a Senate Rules Committee.

The amendment is a proposal he had included in his book Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, published earlier this month.

But the former justice, who retired from the court in 2010, argued his amendment is even more necessary in the wake of the recent McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court struck down aggregate donation caps on campaign contributions on the basis that the limits violated the First Amendment protection of free speech.

Stevens agreed with Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., in arguing that classifying any amendment as absolute would do away with limits on acts like screaming fire in a crowded movie theater.

It is fundamentally wrong to assume that preventing corruption is the only justification for laws limiting the First Amendment rights of candidates and their supporters, Stevens said.

(AP Photo)

Shortly before Stevens took the stand, Schumer announced a plan by Senate Democrats to vote this year on a new constitutional amendment by Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., that would allow Congress to make laws restricting campaign finance contributions.

See more here:

Former Supreme Court Justice Wants to Amend the Constitution

What happened to Sterling was morally wrong

Posted on by

(CNN) - This past week, my inbox blew up with e-mails asking whether Donald Sterling's First Amendment rights were violated in the uproar over the Los Angeles Clippers owner's racist remarks about black people. After all, he was simply expressing his views, however unpopular.

While he did have some rights violated, his First Amendment rights remain intact.

The First Amendment protects you from the government punishing you because of your speech. The NBA is a private club, and it can discipline Sterling all it wants.

What about the chorus of criticism? Are we all violating his First Amendment rights by criticizing him? We are punishing him for his speech.

Nope. The First Amendment does not insulate you from criticism. In fact, that's the First Amendment in action. That is how the marketplace of ideas works. We float our ideas in the marketplace, and we see which idea sells.

Most everyone would agree that Sterling's ideas fail in the marketplace of ideas. Nevertheless, I reluctantly stand on Sterling's side today. What happened to him may have been illegal and was morally wrong.

Start with illegal. In California, you can't record a conversation without the knowledge or consent of both parties. The recording featuring Sterling and V. Stiviano may be the result of a crime. Once she gathered this information, someone leaked it (she denies it was her) -- and it went viral. This is where I think things went morally wrong.

We all say things in private that we might not say in public. Sometimes we have ideas that are not fully developed -- we try them out with our closest friends. Consider it our test-marketplace of ideas. As our ideas develop, we consider whether to make them public. Should we not all have the freedom to make that choice on our own?

The Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy made his own stupid and bigoted statements, and he's been nationally pilloried, too -- but he chose to make those statements to the world. He deserves every ounce of obloquy heaped upon him.

But does Sterling? Think about what his public character execution means. It means that we now live in a world where if you have any views that are unpopular, you now not only need to fear saying them in public, but you need to fear saying them at all -- even to your intimate friends. They might be recording you, and then that recording may be spread across the Internet for everyone to hear.

Read more:

What happened to Sterling was morally wrong

Senate Dems vow vote to change Constitution, block campaign funding

Posted on by

In what amounts to a declaration of war on the Roberts Supreme Court, Senate Democrats said Wednesday that they will force a vote this year on a constitutional amendment to overturn several landmark First Amendment campaign finance rulings and give Congress explicit powers to set donation and spending limits for all federal campaigns.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat driving the effort, said the justices have taken the First Amendment too far and need to be reeled in by Congress.

SEE ALSO: Ex-Justice Stevens backs amendment on campaign funds

He said he had the blessing of fellow Democratic leaders to bring the amendment to the floor for a vote rather soon. They acknowledged that they have little hope of succeeding but said the vote was a way to send a message to the justices.

The First Amendment is not absolute, Mr. Schumer said. The only way that we can save American democracy, so that people still believe its one person, one vote and theres a semblance of fairness, is a constitutional amendment.

The move kicks off a fundamental debate over free speech, the limits of congressional powers and the nature of political campaigns.

Opponents said they were shocked that Democrats would attempt to amend the Constitution to limit something that the Supreme Court has called a fundamental right and that the move was another way to try to insulate lawmakers from having to hear from voters.

Campaign finance reform restrictions are always pitched as Lets prevent corruption, lets hold politicians accountable, and they do exactly the opposite, said Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican. Every single restriction this body puts in place is designed to do one thing protect incumbent politicians.

Campaign finance has been a touchy issue for decades but has taken on a more pointed tone in recent years.

In his 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama scolded the justices, sitting directly in front of him in the House chamber, for their Citizens United decision issued just days earlier.

Continued here:

Senate Dems vow vote to change Constitution, block campaign funding