Daily Archives: February 6, 2012

Every presidential election year, certain hot-button issues come to the forefront. This year is no different with discussions of abortion, taxes and gun control.

Lawrence, KS - infoZine - A University of Kansas law professor has authored an article arguing that in the case of Americans’ right to keep and bear arms as represented in the Second Amendment, Congress is the body that will have the most impact, not the president or Supreme Court, as is often assumed.

Stephen McAllister, professor of law, authored “Individual Rights Under a System of Dual Sovereignty: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms” for the University of Kansas Law Review. In the article, he examines the relationship between state and federal constitutions. Forty-four states currently have language in their constitutions granting individuals some right to own firearms. The Supreme Court has also recently weighed in on the matter with its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, a 2008 decision which holds that citizens have the right to own and possess typical firearms in federal enclaves. A couple of years later the Supreme Court followed up Heller by holding that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms also applies against state and local governments.

“It is an interesting question, to what degree does federal law determine what rights people have to carry guns?” McAllister said of the Supreme Court’s rulings and the reason he wrote the article. “It’s timely because the Supreme Court has finally said the Second Amendment does in fact mean something.”

From state to state, laws regarding gun ownership vary, but if any were to contradict federal law, the state laws would be superseded, or “pre-empted” by the Second Amendment. The argument of states’ rights does not win out.

“If a state law is in conflict with the U.S. Constitution, the Constitution always wins,” McAllister said. “In Heller, however, the Supreme Court went out of its way to make clear that a host of federal laws regulating firearms are valid.’”

After Heller, states generally can’t ban, but can regulate gun ownership, he said. Despite the Supreme Court’s stand, people focused on gun rights and restriction should focus more on Congress, McAllister argues. Federal legislation also trumps state legislation, and were Congress to pass any restrictions on gun ownership, states would be required to follow those restrictions.

Few federal lawmakers have chosen to focus on gun rights or restriction, but because the Supreme Court has set the level of constitutional protection relatively low, Congress has room to regulate gun ownership, when and if it chooses to do so, McAllister said. That sets the Second Amendment question apart from other often-controversial constitutional topics.

“It doesn’t often turn out this way because the Supreme Court has often set the bar fairly high to very high in cases of individual rights such as abortion and free speech,” he said.

In that regard, for example, should a state pass legislation outlawing abortion, it would be trumped by federal law, and will continue to be unless the decision in Roe v. Wade were overturned. The same is true of state laws that might attempt to punish protected speech, as occurred recently in the case of Snyder v. Phelps.

McAllister, who teaches both state and federal constitutional law classes, said it is interesting to examine how each state addresses the question of gun rights in its constitution. Some contain wording identical or nearly so to the Second Amendment regarding well-organized militias, while others are very specific in protecting the legal uses of firearms for recreation or home defense. As part of the article, McAllister compiled a table of the 44 state constitutions that address the issue and included the specific language from each. Like virtually all other controversial constitutional topics, the question of gun rights will continue to evolve, he said.

“I think short of banning typical weapons, states probably have the authority — in spite of the Second Amendment — to determine their own laws with respect to firearms, so long as those laws do not conflict with any federal statute regulating guns,” he said. “What people who are concerned about gun rights really need to focus on is Congress, not the Supreme Court. That’s where the ‘gun rights’ action will occur.”

Here is the original post:
Biggest Factor in Gun Rights, Congress, Not Courts

16-12-2011 07:48 A libertarian's view of the second amendment.

Read the original:
What is the second amendment? - Video

22-01-2012 01:28 Artist: Second Amendment Song: "Wotan Rains On A Plutocrat Parade" Album: Various - The Appeal Of Discarded Orthodoxy: A Tribute To David E. Williams (2007)

View post:
Second Amendment ~ "Wotan Rains On A Plutocrat Parade" (David E. Williams cover) - Video

03-02-2012 08:28

See original here:
Second Amendment Paranoia - Video

If you are politically conservative, like most of what the Tea Party stands for and a strong defender of the Second Amendment of the Constitution (the right to bear arms), you would have been in good company at the Yosemite Gateway Restaurant Jan. 24.

Speaking at an Oakhurst/Coarsegold Area Tea Party meeting, Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California said his organization is recruiting Tea Party members to run for the state assembly and senate seats to regain some balance in California from the radical left.

"We know the battle is in the political trenches and victory will never be assured until the last anti-gun legislator is defeated."

Paredes and his organization, founded by 22-year California Senator H.L. Richardson (Ret.), feels there are "swing" elections in both state assembly and senate races this year. He said Gun Owners of California is recruiting Tea Party members in those districts and feels their efforts could add an additional eight to 11 Republicans to the Assembly and Senate.

"There are 62 Tea Party members currently in congress that fight hard for what they believe in," Paredes said. "We have to stick together, communicate amongst each other and continue to grow."

Protecting Second Amendment rights

Paredes, speaking before more than 100 attendees, said the primary goal of his lobbying organization is to protect and conserve citizens Second Amendment rights.

"We believe the Second Amendment to the constitution is under severe attack and must be vigorously defended," Paredes said.

He said the Constitution and Bill of Rights are priceless documents that are as valid today as when they were first drafted.

He has spoken before 83 Tea Party, Republican and Second Amendment events throughout California over the past two years.

"The overriding theme that all of these groups have in common is that they want to do something to take their state and country back," Paredes said. "These folks are motivated to do whatever it takes to elect conservatives and defeat not just radical liberals, but all liberals."

"To the radical left, everything is about control so they can exert their power over the populace," Paredes said. "They know deep down inside that they can never fully reach that goal as long as the citizens of this country and this state own guns."

He said the vast majority of Californians live in urban area such as Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego and the Bay Area.

"All those areas have virtual bans on the insurance of Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) permits," said Paredes. "Sacramento and El Dorado Counties alone issue more permits than all of the urban communities combined."

Pero impressed with Paredes

John Pero, who along with his wife Janae, serve as the Oakhurst-Coarsegold Tea Party Coordinators, arranged for Paredes to speak in Oakhurst. Jon Pero said he was impressed with Paredes' depth of knowledge of Second Amendment issues and how to fight and win in the political arena.

"Instead of just presenting gloom and doom, Sam had a very positive message," Pero said. "One key thing I came away with, was how small political victories can radically alter the political landscape. If we target the districts that will be close races this fall in California, and win over half of them, it will translate into significant more conservatives in the assembly in Sacramento and a way to stop Governor Brown and the Democrats from passing more anti business, anti second amendment, anti growth and anti family values legislation in California."

Pero said he liked how Paredes described the type of candidates that are needed in California and across the nation.

"Not the 'I'll reach across the aisle types' that just want to compromise, but the Tea Party type candidates who have passion in their bones who will aggressively fight against the liberal machine in Sacramento and in Washington, and who will not compromise their values."

It was the first time Maria Carpenter, a volunteer at Helping Hands Pregnancy & Parenting Center in Oakhurst, attended a Tea Party meeting.

"I wanted to know who is out there running for office and to learn more about them ... especially the ones being supported by the Tea Party," Carpenter said. "This is such an important election year."

She said she wants to know who is supportive of the intentions of the founding fathers who were clear that we all have inalienable rights that were given to us by our creator including freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the pursuit of happiness and what candidates support the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

"The fact that the Second Amendment was going to be discussed peeked my interest," Carpenter said.

Carpenter said she was glad she attended the meeting and liked what Paredes had to say.

"It was an excellent meeting that met my expectations and I was impressed with the organization and leadership skills of John and Janae Pero," Carpenter said. "I like being part of a grass roots effort and I hope to help out. The only time people cry out is when they are being oppressed ... and the time is now. I hope to bring a couple friends with me to the next meeting."

More than 700 members in Mountain Area Tea Party

The Oakhurst-Coarsegold Tea Party has grown from about 550 members a year ago to currently more than 700. There are 12 chapters between Mariposa and Bakersfield.

John Pero said what draws people to the Tea Party is their agreement with the party's three core values -- Constitutional limited government, free markets and fiscal responsibility.

"The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights says the people have the right to own and carry firearms and it may not be violated, yet the government at federal, state and local levels have put unconstitutional restrictions against this right," said Pero after the meeting.

Pero said that Constitutionally limited government means just that -- limited to only what the Constitution says.

"Over the past 150 years politicians have imposed more and more regulations on businesses and individuals and stripped us of our God given and Constitutional rights. They have increasingly raised our taxes to pay for things that are unconstitutional."

Pero feels liberals and progressives say the Constitution is a living document.

"That is complete nonsense," said Pero. "The Constitution does not deal with technology, it deals with human nature. Human nature does not change. If the constitution is a 'living document.' then so is everyone's mortgage. It is a contract. It means what it says, and says what it means. When public officials take office, they swear to uphold the Constitution -- the "contract" with the United States."

Pero said it is the expansion of the government that Tea Party members are so upset with.

"They are tired of the government continually
spending more and more of our tax dollars on entitlement programs or allowing agencies like the EPA which are not subject to voters from the public, to implement regulations which cripple businesses or put the rights of a rat or frog above those of human beings," Pero said. "These types of decisions were to be left to the States and local jurisdictions, not the federal government. More and more people today are fed up with the over reach and bureaucracies of the federal, state and local governments."

Paredes feels the largest impact the Tea Party has had on national politics is the organization has shined the light on everything Congress and the president have done that is unconstitutional and have caused many to take action and speak up.

"Even the mainstream news presents the views of the Democrats, the Republican and the Tea Party, although reluctantly at times," Paredes said. "The media can not avoid it because even Republican leaders admit they are siding with the Tea Party on various issues."

Information, instructions and forms were available at the meeting for obtaining a Concealed Carry Weapons permit through the Madera County Sheriff's Department. The informational packet may be picked-up at the department's Mountain Division office in Oakhurst (559) 642-3201 or downloaded from the department's website by going to madera-county.com.

Details: gunownersca.com.

Read more from the original source:
Tea Party hosts head of Gun Owners of California

To the Editor:

I am strong supporter of the Second Amendment and I have written several opinion pieces on the subject for the Portsmouth Herald in an attempt to use factual data to dispel inaccurate opinions and fear mongering by administration officials and even the editors of this newspaper.

Both the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions made it quite clear that the Second Amendment provides the basis for lawful gun ownership and applies to the states; they also said that, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, this right can be "reasonably" regulated — "reasonable" being the important word here.

When Senate Bill 88, essentially a castle doctrine piece of legislation, was passed by the N.H. Legislature and vetoed by the governor, I made the case using available data that all of the fears and fear mongering were factually baseless. It was "reasonable" to be able to have the Legislature add legal protection, the benefit of the doubt, when protecting yourself, your family or fellow citizens, and the Legislature overrode the governor's veto, much to my approval.

Now the Legislature has presented a series of sweeping bills that would remove even more restrictions in favor of the right to own and bear firearms, and this has produced much of the same reaction as the castle doctrine legislation did. Mr. Abramson responded to some recent opinion pieces and he was absolutely correct on the factual basis of his response. I also find myself in agreement with some of the new legislation and astounded at the political stupidity of others.

You see, my politics incorporates pragmatism as well, something this Legislature knows nothing about, but should have been predictable to all of us and manifested as a massive shift to the far right of reason in response to the foolishness of the former, Democratically led, Legislature.

I believe the Republican Legislature may be materially correct, but they are making huge miscalculations about who we are.

They may have a majority — even a veto-proof majority, but they are poking a stick in their fellow citizens' eyes that won't be forgotten. HB 334, if passed, would allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms on all publicly owned property. At its core, I agree with this legislation, especially the component that would allow firearms on New Hampshire campuses. All campuses are essentially a free-fire zone for criminal activities, and university rules should not be allowed to prevent those who are permitted to own and carry a firearm for protection from doing so.

Not withstanding Mr. Patton's "hallow ground" theory, I have been exposed to the possibility of an armed, presumed unstable, student on a New Hampshire campus and university officials were more concerned with the protection of the university from a public relations viewpoint than they were concerned about the safety of their students, staff or faculty. They had to be "convinced" that, if we couldn't protect ourselves from this potential threat, then a police presence was required, and they finally acquiesced to that.

HB 194 would remove restrictions on having loaded long rifles and shotguns in motor vehicles. For the life of me, I would love to hear the reason for this. These weapons would not be preferred in a close-quartered car situation, where protection might be required, and while I suspect that the incident of accidental firearm discharge will be low as a result, I don't believe it will be zero. It's unnecessary and shines a bad light on other important legislative efforts, as described above, to eliminate restrictions to Second Amendment rights.

HB 536-N is also not needed, although I believe in the premise that we do not need a "license" to exercise a right. But it is "reasonable" to have a procedure to make sure as many people as possible who shouldn't have firearms do not have the means to obtain them, and the permitting process was another process to make sure that doesn't happen.

Again, notwithstanding the experience of other states that do not require permits, and their excellent records showing that their citizens have acted responsibly, was this legislation really needed? In a state that is known as a "shall issue" state, we have had few problems with people being able to get a concealed-carry permit. The problem is that those who have been denied arbitrarily have had few options for redress. The better legislation would have been to set up a review board for these cases to adjudicate them more fairly and leave the permit process, which includes a background check, in place.

I will likely catch some you-know-what for this, but I think this is "reasonable" and not a slippery slope to more onerous restrictions that I would object to. So, someday the opposing party will be in power and there will be calls to repeal many of these laws. I just hope, against reason and politics, that they won't be poking a stick in our eyes as well.

Michael Lesser

Newmarket

Reader Reaction We reserve the right to remove any content at any time from this Community, including without limitation if it violates the Community Rules. We ask that you report content that you in good faith believe violates the above rules by clicking the Flag link next to the offending comment. New comments are only accepted for two weeks from the date of publication.

Originally posted here:
Second Amendment fan says gun bills go too far