Page 49«..1020..48495051..»

Category Archives: Second Amendment

Defenseless Nigerian Men, No Second Amendment #BringBackOurGirls Boku Haram – Video

Posted: May 10, 2014 at 12:52 pm


Defenseless Nigerian Men, No Second Amendment #BringBackOurGirls Boku Haram
Defenseless Nigerian Men Without Second Amendment #BringBackOurGirls Boku Haram RT LIKE, POST SHARE! WATCH [VIDEO] SUBSCRIBE, JOIN OUR SOCIAL MEDIA NETWORKING, Click http://RastafariGroundation...

By: RastafariSabbathical

See the original post:

Defenseless Nigerian Men, No Second Amendment #BringBackOurGirls Boku Haram - Video

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Defenseless Nigerian Men, No Second Amendment #BringBackOurGirls Boku Haram – Video

Alan Gottlieb Supporting Compromise of your Second Amendment Rights – Video

Posted: May 9, 2014 at 12:49 pm


Alan Gottlieb Supporting Compromise of your Second Amendment Rights

By: NationalGunRights

View post:

Alan Gottlieb Supporting Compromise of your Second Amendment Rights - Video

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Alan Gottlieb Supporting Compromise of your Second Amendment Rights – Video

Second Amendment – Laws

Posted: May 8, 2014 at 12:50 pm

A Guide to the Second AmendmentThe Second Amendment, or Amendment II, of the United States Constitution is the amendment and the section of the Bill of Rights that says that people have the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment was adopted into the United States Constitution on December 15, 1791, along with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights were introduced into the United States Constitution by James Madison.The Text of the Second AmendmentThere are two important versions of the text found in the Second Amendment, but the only differences are due to punctuation and capitalization. The text of the Second Amendment which is found in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the following:" 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."What Does the Second Amendment Mean?The Second Amendment is only a sentence long. However, there are some very important phrases that need to be carefully looked at. Here are some explanations for key phrases in the Second Amendment. Militia: During early American history, all males who were between the ages of sixteen to sixty were required to be a part of the local militia in their towns and communities.Almost everyone during this time used and owned guns.The few men who did not use or own a gun were required by law to pay a small fee instead of participating in the military services of their communities.These militias defended the communities against Indian raids and revolved, acted as a police force when it was needed, and was also available to be called upon to defense either the State or of the United States of America if it was needed.Bear arms: When the Second Amendment was written, arms meant weapons. The word arms did not necessarily only mean guns, but it definitely included guns. The Second Amendment did not specifically explain what categories or types of arms nor did it list what weapons were considered arms. When you bear arms, this means you physically carry weapon. You may have arms in your home as well as on your person.Shall not be infringed:The Second Amendment does not grant any right to bear arms. Furthermore, the rest of the Bill of Rights does not describe any right to do so. These rights are thought of as natural rights or God-given rights.In the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment is just a reminder to the government that they should not try to stop people from having this right.

A Guide to the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment, or Amendment II, of the United States Constitution is the amendment and the section of the Bill of Rights that says that people have the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment was adopted into the United States Constitution on December 15, 1791, along with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights were introduced into the United States Constitution by James Madison.

The Text of the Second Amendment

There are two important versions of the text found in the Second Amendment, but the only differences are due to punctuation and capitalization. The text of the Second Amendment which is found in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the following:

" 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."

What Does the Second Amendment Mean?

The Second Amendment is only a sentence long. However, there are some very important phrases that need to be carefully looked at. Here are some explanations for key phrases in the Second Amendment.

Militia: During early American history, all males who were between the ages of sixteen to sixty were required to be a part of the local militia in their towns and communities. Almost everyone during this time used and owned guns. The few men who did not use or own a gun were required by law to pay a small fee instead of participating in the military services of their communities. These militias defended the communities against Indian raids and revolved, acted as a police force when it was needed, and was also available to be called upon to defense either the State or of the United States of America if it was needed.

Bear arms: When the Second Amendment was written, arms meant weapons. The word arms did not necessarily only mean guns, but it definitely included guns. The Second Amendment did not specifically explain what categories or types of arms nor did it list what weapons were considered arms. When you bear arms, this means you physically carry weapon. You may have arms in your home as well as on your person.

Go here to see the original:

Second Amendment - Laws

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Second Amendment – Laws

Second Amendment in real time boils down to politics

Posted: at 12:50 pm

Originally published May 7, 2014 at 7:05 PM | Page modified May 8, 2014 at 12:02 AM

History, politics and law are all tangled up in contemporary court interpretations and public understanding of the Second Amendment, and politics is the greater part of the mix these days.

Last week, I wrote that weve so misread the amendment that maybe we ought to get rid of it. Thats certainly not on the horizon, but the idea drew a strong response and suggested to me that a review of the amendments history might be helpful. (Some of the responses also reinforced my belief there are many people who should not be allowed anywhere near a gun. What does racist name calling have to do with gun rights anyway?)

One theme that ran through comments supportive of unrestricted gun-ownership rights was that it is necessary for individuals to own guns to protect themselves against both crime and the U.S. government, and that the framers of the Constitution intended for the amendment to protect that individual right.

Thats a new way of reading the amendment.

I heard from Michael Schein, an attorney who handles appeals and who taught American legal history for 15 years at the University of Puget Sound and Seattle University.

Dont blame the framers, he wrote. For 217 years, the law under the 2nd Amendment was that it only protected possession or use of a firearm by well-regulated militia forces. ... It contained no right of personal self-defense until 2008, when the Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote brought that interpretation to its ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which limited the Districts gun-regulation law.

Wednesday I called Schein, and we talked about the amendments history and current interpretation. Its heavily politicized and wrapped up in peoples emotions, so its difficult to get to the facts underlying it in any objective way, he said.

The Constitution was written to create a more effective federal government, but some people worried the government would trample on the rights of states and individuals. The Bill of Rights was intended to mollify them and make ratification of the Constitution possible. Some were particularly concerned that the federal government would form a standing army, and they wanted assurances that state militias would be in a position to fight against such an army if it came to that.

James Madison was tasked with drafting the amendments. Some of the states had asked for a personal right in one amendment, but he didnt include that. Instead he used a version of Virginia law that dealt with militias.

View post:

Second Amendment in real time boils down to politics

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Second Amendment in real time boils down to politics

Gun Depot USA Second amendment target shooting. – Video

Posted: May 7, 2014 at 11:48 pm


Gun Depot USA Second amendment target shooting.
Target shooting in a sand pit.Sorry no GPS on where ,it will remain to be a hidden range.

By: Preston Sousa

Here is the original post:

Gun Depot USA Second amendment target shooting. - Video

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Gun Depot USA Second amendment target shooting. – Video

Second Amendment Shootout – Video

Posted: at 11:48 pm


Second Amendment Shootout
K-State College Republicans held the annual second amendment shootout in support of the right to bear arms.

By: Jason Beets

Go here to read the rest:

Second Amendment Shootout - Video

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Second Amendment Shootout – Video

Wisconsin Sheriff Reveals the Seven Words He Would Use to Change the Second Amendment – Video

Posted: May 6, 2014 at 11:47 am


Wisconsin Sheriff Reveals the Seven Words He Would Use to Change the Second Amendment
April 25, 2014 - INDIANAPOLIS Sheriff David Clarke Jr. may not be a household name.yet. But he #39;s well on his way after his rousing speech at the 2014 NRA. ...

By: News04

See the rest here:

Wisconsin Sheriff Reveals the Seven Words He Would Use to Change the Second Amendment - Video

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Wisconsin Sheriff Reveals the Seven Words He Would Use to Change the Second Amendment – Video

US Supreme Court refuses to consider gun-rights case

Posted: at 11:47 am

WASHINGTON - The US Supreme Court on Monday refused to take up a case over whether Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms in public.

It comes amid a rumbling and divisive debate between pro- and anti-gun lobbies after several high-profile shootings or massacres in recent years.

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution gives citizens the right to bear arms, but states have enacted various laws governing gun ownership.

John Drake, who operates an ATM business, was challenging a strict New Jersey state law that requires people wanting to carry a handgun outside the home to demonstrate a "justifiable need."

Backed by the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA), Drake argued that his employees need to be able to defend themselves because they are carrying large sums of money.

The NRA said in its argument backing Drake: "The Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry weapons for the purpose of self-defence - not just for self-defence within the home, but for self-defence - period."

It added that the "right to bear arms for self-defence" was "as important outside the home as inside."

In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to possess a gun at home for self-defence.

But in dismissing the complaint, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court of appeal decision stating that the New Jersey law is consistent with the Second Amendment.

It has declined to hear similar challenges to the concealed carry laws of New York and Maryland.

Read more:

US Supreme Court refuses to consider gun-rights case

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on US Supreme Court refuses to consider gun-rights case

Staying away from guns and Gitmo

Posted: at 11:47 am

Posted Mon, May 5th, 2014 12:00 pm by Lyle Denniston

Two areas of the law where the Supreme Court made major pronouncements, and then all but dropped the subject, continued on Monday to remain off the Courts decision docket. One wasthe intensifying controversy over Second Amendment rights; the other was the lingering controversy over the fate of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Without comment, the Court denied review of new cases, keeping intact a lengthening list of refusals.

Since the Courts 2008 decision declaring a personal right to have a gun under the Second Amendment, and its 2010 decision expanding that right nationwide, the Justices have steadfastly refused to say anything more about how far that right extends. And since its 2008 decision giving Guantanamo Bay detainees a right to go to court to protesttheir prolonged imprisonment, it has routinely denied pleasto spell out how that ruling should be applied.

The pattern continued on Monday, as the Justices without explanation and with no dissenting votes recorded chose not to take on the Second Amendment case of Drake v. Jerejian, or the Guantanamo case of Al Warafi v. Obama.

Only two explanations seem plausible: either the Court is content to let lower courts work out the details of gun rights and detention authority, or the Justices are hesitating to take on a new case because they are not sure how the votes will be cast on final decisions.

Probably the biggest question overhanging the Second Amendment is whether the right to have a gun for personal self-defense exists outside the home. Some courts have said yes, some have said no, and some have not been sure either way. That was the issue raised in the Drake case, seeking to test a New Jersey law that requires an individual who wants to carry a handgun in public to get a permit to do so; to obtain such a permit, one has to convince officials that the person has a justifiable need for that privilege.

There is a clear split among federal appeals courts on the outside-the-home issue. In the Drake case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found no Second Amendment violation with the handgun permit law.

Probably the biggest question overhanging Guantanamo Bay prisoners that is, those being held there who are not being prosecuted for any crimes is whether and how long they can be kept there if they did not actively engage in armed conflict against the U.S. or its allies before they were captured. Justice Stephen G. Breyer signaled in a recent opinion that this is an open question.

And that appeared to be the situation in the new Al Warafi case. He and his lawyers have insisted that he went to Afghanistan to act as a medical worker, in clinics and hospitals, and his stint with Taliban forces was only as a medical aide. His detention was upheld by lower courts, however, because he was found to have been a part of the Taliban terrorist network regardless whether he had engaged in armed hostilities himself.

Those denials came among a series of orders the Court issued before beginning a two-week recess. Here, in summary, were some of the other actions:

Originally posted here:

Staying away from guns and Gitmo

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Staying away from guns and Gitmo

NYC Mayor Bloomberg – Deny Second Amendment to People on Terror Watch List. – Video

Posted: May 5, 2014 at 4:47 pm


NYC Mayor Bloomberg - Deny Second Amendment to People on Terror Watch List.
Economics Videos Economics, Economics articles, Economics a level, Economics and finance, Economics articles 2014, Economics basics, Economics books, Economi...

By: EarnMoney FromHome

Read the original:

NYC Mayor Bloomberg - Deny Second Amendment to People on Terror Watch List. - Video

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on NYC Mayor Bloomberg – Deny Second Amendment to People on Terror Watch List. – Video

Page 49«..1020..48495051..»