Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Alternative Medicine
- Artificial Intelligence
- Atlas Shrugged
- Ayn Rand
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Chess Engines
- Cloud Computing
- Conscious Evolution
- Cosmic Heaven
- Designer Babies
- Donald Trump
- Ethical Egoism
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom of Speech
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- High Seas
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Longevity
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Life Extension
- Mars Colonization
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- New Utopia
- Personal Empowerment
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Private Islands
- Quantum Computing
- Quantum Physics
- Resource Based Economy
- Ron Paul
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Teilhard De Charden
- The Singularity
- Tor Browser
- Transhuman News
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Zeitgeist Movement
The Evolutionary Perspective
Category Archives: Second Amendment
Posted: October 20, 2019 at 4:45 am
Ask a U.S. citizen what the Second Amendment stands for. Some respond this amendment protects an individuals right to carry a gun. Like a shooter who misses the target, they are confused as to the amendments scope and intent.
Historically, the Second Amendment safeguards the citizens right through the states efforts to recruit armed militias that defend our nation. In 1939, Robert H. Jackson, who served as President Franklin Delano Roosevelts solicitor general, maintained the Second Amendment is restricted to the keeping and bearing of arms by the people collectively for their common defense and security. Robert Bork, President Ronald Reagans nominee for the Supreme Court in 1989, then agreed, saying this amendment works to guarantee the right of states to form militia, not for individuals to bear arms. On target, Bork later missed the mark as to what the Second Amendment allows.
Granted, its stilted expression blurs the amendments meaning. It reads: 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.
Constitutional framers were wary of growing a federal government that usurped the rights of states to defend themselves. Consequently, the federal army remained small. When President Thomas Jefferson left office in 1809, federal troops numbered a little more than 12,000. Most patrolled the western frontier, consisting of territories east of the Mississippi River, which included the Ohio River Valley. There Native Americans fought encroaching white pioneers. Federal troops protected white settlers who headed West through the Cumberland Water Gap.
Whena foreign adversary attacked the U.S., colonials assumed states had the rightto raise volunteer militias to defend the nation. States fiercely protectedtheir rights to draft, fund and provide leaders for local militias.
Statesexpressed slight, if any, concern about the federal government infringing oncitizens by denying them the right to carry a gun. The colonial U.S. was an agriculturaleconomy. Farmers hunted game to supplement harvested crops. Children 10 yearsand older fired muskets to kill deer while their parents worked the land. ThomasJefferson shared the cultural assumption that the U.S. would prosper with10-year-olds trained to fire muskets.
Historian Garry Wills pointed out that the Second Amendment had everything to do with the common defense and nothing to do with hunting: One does not bear arms against a rabbit.
Since the 1970s, the National Rifle Association has turned the Second Amendments meaning on its head. It cleverly treats the opening to the amendment about arming militias as a preface to its alleged main punchline: every citizen has the right to carry a gun.
The NRAs grammatical hatchet separates the amendments two clauses. The second clause is wrongly elevated about alleged gun rights, casting aside state militias right to bear arms.
When the NRA kept its national headquarters in Washington D.C. instead of moving to Colorado Springs in the late 1970s, it placed a motto on its headquarters doors, making muddy the Second Amendments original meaning. The NRA separated the second clause from the first in its motto posted on the door: The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.
Historian Jill Lepore traces the NRAs slippery slide to reshape the Second Amendment. In 1982, Utahs Republican Senator Orin Hatch headed the Judiciary Committee that passed a report: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Hatchs committee spun a convoluted constitutional argument thats off-target. What the Subcommittee [Hatch chaired] on the Constitution uncovered was clear and long lost proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for the protection of himself, the family, and his freedoms, scoffs historian Lepore, who rejects this faulty historical reading.
Many conservative citizens accept this unconventional interpretation of an alleged older, long-lost interpretation of the constitutions original meaning regarding their gun rights. Evangelicals tend to oppose restrictions on gun ownership, reported NBC News on September 4, 2019, and prefer having guns in the hands of good guys, schoolteachers, security guards and law-abiding citizens.
The NRA stacked the deck with handpicked pundits to support their false claim. Of twenty-seven law review articles published between 1970 and 1989 that were favorable to the NRAs interpretation of the Second Amendment, reports historian Lepore, at least 19 were written by authors employed or represented by the NRA or other gun groups.
The NRA violates the Second Amendments original intent: the right of states to arm their militias.
The Rev. Dr. Jack R. Van Ens is a Presbyterian minister who heads the nonprofit, tax-exempt Creative Growth Ministries (www.thelivinghistory.com), which enhances Christian worship through dynamic storytelling and dramatic presentations aimed to make Gods history come alive.
Follow this link:
Van Ens: Hit the Second Amendment's bull's-eye - Vail Daily News
Posted: at 4:45 am
Why Don't People and Vogue Celebrate the Second Amendment? iStock-1145895496
United States/United Kingdom -(AmmoLand.com)-When we talk about the need for the NRA to get involved in cultural engagement in order to establish a pro-Second Amendment culture, some might question the need. After all, Hollywoods bias is well known, its arguably baked into the planning many Second Amendment supporters have. But this will matter a lot even if correction, especially if the Supreme Court case on New York City gun regulations ends up with a favorable ruling.
Why? Think of it this way: In America, while the Constitution protects our God-given rights, the people still rule. The First Amendment not only protects the right of Second Amendment supporters to defend our freedoms, it also protects the right of anti-Second Amendment extremists to encourage the American people to throw out pro-Second Amendment elected officials and replace them with anti-Second Amendment extremists. And we need not kid ourselves: Anti-Second Amendment extremists have been running an incredibly effective long game against our right to keep and bear arms, one that is a full-spectrum fight that includes wielding pop culture against us.
One way is through those magazines you often see in the supermarket, either in the checkout aisle, or where others are stored. Two that blatantly snubbed women who support the Second Amendment in issues celebrating women who made a difference are People and the British edition of Vogue, the latter guest-edited by Meghan Markle.
But in those two magazines, we saw three anti-Second Amendment presidential candidates, a prime minister who inflicted an injustice on thousands of people in her country (when people are wrongly punished via having their legally-owned property confiscated over a shooting they did not carry out, an injustice has taken place), and a major media mogul who supported the extreme anti-Second Amendment group March 4 Our Lives. Excluded? Women who support our right to keep and bear arms.
No talk of Dana Loesch, who has defended the Second Amendment despite becoming a target for vicious slurs and worse. What about Suzanna Gratia Hupp, who turned into an activist for our rights after her parents died in a mass shooting? There are countless other women who gave stood for the Second Amendment and have a great deal of accomplishment to their names, including former NRA President Marion Hammer, former NRA-ILA Executive Director Tanya Metaksa, and even NRA board members like Susan Howard or Sandra Froman (another former NRA President). People and Vogue dont even mention them.
You may wonder why we should care about a magazine from the supermarket checkout aisle, or a publication devoted to fashion. Well, when they are leveraged to attack our rights, we need to care. Worse, these magazines have wide circulation. Between its English and Spanish versions, People reaches almost four million people a week. The American edition of Vogue reaches about 1.2 million. American Rifleman comes in at 1.85 million, or less than half that of People. Vogue has a larger circulation than either American Hunter (929,000) or Americas First Freedom (roughly 630,000).
People, incidentally, will also get mentioned in other news outlets and it sits in the waiting rooms of doctors offices so the four million figure is probably low. Vogue also will crop up in those waiting rooms. American Rifleman? Not so much these days.
Finally, who reads those magazines? Well, much of that readership comes from the suburbs. One admitted success that anti-Second Amendment extremists like Michael Bloomberg have achieved is that they are doing well among suburban women the proverbial soccer moms precisely because they have them so scared of their kids school being the location of the next mass shooting that they dont consider the facts.
Plus, look at who often turns up as the subjects of those magazines Hollywoods A-list. Say what you will, but the writers are good storytellers, and while the actors and actresses are often against our rights, we should not dismiss their ability to help along a narrative that makes Second Amendment supporters resisting the injustices like those that Beto ORourke wishes to inflict on us as the villains.
People and Vogue will be two of the venues used to spread that narrative. The NRA and other pro-Second Amendment groups are going to need to adjust to this new type of threat, and that will require changes. It will be very important for Second Amendment supporters to be mindful of how their approach in defense of our freedoms comes across, and to use the right techniques to convince our fellow Americans that the narrative that anti-Second Amendment extremists are presenting is phonier than a red carpet smile, instead of reinforcing the phony narrative.
About Harold Hutchison
Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.
Posted: at 4:45 am
Gun Owners of America State Director Alan Rice has often clashed with Fish and Game officials. Here he testifies at a legislative hearing against the agency while Col. Kevin Jordan, right, listens in. (Courtesy Photo)
CONCORD Gun rights advocates who condemned as anti-Second Amendment the outgoing Fish and Game director are urging Gov. Chris Sununu to nominate a pro-gun replacement.
The state chapter of Gun Owners of America, along with gun rights leader and state Rep. John Burt, R-Goffstown, celebrated the Fish and Game Commissions recent decision to oppose a third four-year term for Director Glenn Normandeau.
They maintain that Normandeau, the second-longest-serving administrator in the agencys history, opposed every attempt to relax gun regulations. They say those efforts included repealing the law requiring a permit to carry a concealed gun, and unsuccessful bills to eliminate the need for a license for pistols or allow riders to carry guns on snowmobiles.
The anti-gun activism is coming from the top. New Hampshire Fish and Game needs a strong leader who respects and reveres the Constitution and doesnt break faith with the taxpayers of New Hampshire who fund the department with state tax dollars, Burt said. The department needs to stop advocating for gun control since the department receives close to $500,000 per year of federal gun tax monies.
For nearly 90 years, Fish and Game has received Pittman-Robertson Act dollars from a 10% federal tax on handguns and an 11% tax on shotguns and ammunition.
Rep. Mark Proulx, R-Manchester, is still angry that the agency opposed his bill several years ago to end the prohibition against motorists carrying loaded guns in cars and trucks.
Normandeau has pushed against the Second Amendment across the board. It boggles my mind how you have someone against firearms running Fish and Game. It is time for a change, Proulx said.
State Rep. Daniel Eaton, D-Stoddard, has worked with Normandeau throughout his career. Eaton praised Normandeau as someone who could work with opposing factions, from those seeking fewer restrictions on guns to others who want to license all guns or even ban private ownership outright.
(In) no place in the description of the Fish and Game Department does it say that the executive director is to be a gun activist. Quite the contrary, the job of Fish and Game is to provide for the safe use of firearms, said Eaton, who is entering his 30th year in the Legislature and is a retired police chief in his hometown.
Eaton maintains that regardless of his personal views, Normandeau has been an impartial arbitrator.
He is anything but anti-gun. I have seen him in events off campus when hes not on the job and hes very supportive of the rights gun owners have, he said.
Impartial arbiter or gun control promoter?
Alan Rice, state director of GOA-NH, claims Normandeau has acted as if he represents Americans for Responsible Solutions, the group founded by shooting victim and former Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords.
We are urging the governor to appoint a director who is not a lobbyist for gun control as if hes working for the Giffords Group, he said.
Rice has often tangled with Fish and Game officials. He once told Col. Kevin Jordan, chief of Fish and Games Law Enforcement Division, that he would not hesitate to use a gun to shoot a deer during bow hunting season.
Even the popular television series North Woods Law stoked the activists ire, with Rice decrying how Fish and Game conservation officers were depicted in interviewing suspected scofflaws without providing proper Miranda warnings and allegedly committing other civil liberty violations.
Two studies out this week offer compelling insights into guns in New Hampshire and complicate the politics surrounding them. While the state ranks in the top 10 per capita in gun ownership, it is one of the nations least violent states, including having the lowest gun-involved murder rate.
This state is more pro-gun than ever, said Mike Hammond, general counsel to GOA-NH and a former congressional candidate from Dunbarton.
Outgoing Fish and Game Executive Director Glenn Normandeau fired back at gun advocates who maintain hes been anti-Second Amendment during his long tenure. The Fish and Game Commission voted in secret not to recommend a third, four-year term for Normandeau.
I think people who think its good politics to run a lot of anti-gun legislation up the flagpole in Concord have been fooling themselves. Gun owners here have been fat, dumb and happy and not worried about anyone taking their guns, Hammond said.
Normandeau said his mandate is simply to enforce the laws and monitor any changes that affect them.
Mr. Rice, et al, clearly dont know how things work, he said, citing the duties of the commission.
The two issues of significance causing concern were public safety and poaching. The deliberations of the commission, as well as the votes, on these issues were all done in public. I do not recall Mr. Rice or Mr. Hammond ever appearing at a commission meeting to bring their comments to the commissioners or myself and the staff.
I do not believe I have ever met either one of them, Normandeau said.
AG says commission exceeded its authority
In June 2017, Attorney General Gordon MacDonald issued a memo to the commission warning it had exceeded its authority by coming out against a bill to repeal a license to own a pistol or revolver and to make it legal to carry a loaded pistol in a car (SB 12).
In summary, the Legislature directed the commission to establish positions on proposed legislation. However, that legislation is limited to the commissions presumably unique expertise in matters relating to fish, wildlife and marine resources as defined by statute as well as overall department management, MacDonald wrote. Firearms is not one of the enumerated subject matters.
In the memo, MacDonald rejected the commissions defense that it acted because the bill could somehow relate to shotguns, which come under Fish and Game regulation.
It is the position of this office that SB 12 has no effect on existing law with respect to loaded rifles and shotguns, MacDonald wrote.
A group of gun advocates attacked the outgoing director of the Fish and Game Commission and urged Gov. Chris Sununu to make sure a "pro-gun" nominee replaces him when the incumbent's term ends in March. (Courtesy Photo)
Not all gun advocates share Rices negative view of Normandeaus tenure.
Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Clegg is a lobbyist and president of Pro-Gun NH, but hes often at odds with Rices views.
Its not a gun issue; its a hate issue, Clegg said. The idea a gun group would interfere in the commissions work is ridiculous. Alan Rice opposes all the changes we were able to get into Fish and Game laws.
State Rep. Katherine Rogers, D-Concord, and a former Merrimack County attorney, wrote two of the four gun control measures that Sununu vetoed last spring.
This attack is insane. The Fish and Game Department is the only agency that doesnt have a commissioner but a director that gets jerked around by this politically-appointed commission, Rogers said.
It is already tilted and skewed to people who want to go out and hunt. I do not want to grab their guns; I hardly have room for my dogs toys, she said.
Rogers believes the governor appreciates that firearms are just one facet of Fish and Games mission.
I have fought with the governor on these issues, but I think he understands the job of Fish and Game is about more than a gun, Rogers said.
Rather than Second Amendment loyalty I want to know, does the next director have a background in marine biology, eco-tourism, hiking trails, the green economy, she said. Frankly all of these will have more to do with the success or failure of that agency going forward than what the NRA wants.
As for Rice, he intends to remain a vigilant guardian of gun freedoms in New Hampshire.
When wildlife managers decide they are going to stray from managing wildlife and get into issues of gun safety and freedoms, thats when we have to step in, he said.
Rep. Ellen Read, D-Newmarket, is working on a 2020 bill to reorganize the agency.
Sununus office did not respond to a request for comment.
2020 Dem candidate opposes mandatory gun buybacks not because of the 2nd Amendment, but because of police brutality – TheBlaze
Posted: at 4:45 am
Democratic presidential candidate Julian Castro opposed the mandatory gun buyback program proposed by rival Beto O'Rourkebut it's not because he believes it violates the Second Amendment.
Instead, the former Obama administration official pointed to the recent killing of Atatiana Jefferson by a police officer in Fort Worth, Texas, to demonstrate that he wouldn't want to create more scenarios in which police are going to people's homes. And the only way for a "buyback" to be truly "mandatory" is if officers are going door-to-door to get the guns.
"There are two problems I have with mandatory buybacks," Castro said during Tuesday night's Democratic debate. "No. 1, folks can't define it, and if you're not going door-to-door then it's not really mandatory. But also, in the places that I grew up in, we weren't exactly looking for another reason for cops to come banging on the door."
Castro went on to summarize the Jefferson story, explaining how she was fatally shot by a police officer who came to her home after a neighbor called the nonemergency line to have someone check on her.
"I am not going to give these police officers another reason to go door-to-door in certain communities," Castro said. "Because police violence is also gun violence, and we need to address that."
Castro was responding to O'Rourke's advocacy of "mandatory buybacks," which is the term of choice for Democrats instead of "confiscation." O'Rourke said that people who don't comply with the mandatory buybacks can expect to get a visit from the police. Meaning people who don't want to sell their guns to the government will have them taken by force.
Although Castro is approaching it from a different perspective, his overall point is something that many on the right agree with: If you send police officers to people's homes to take their guns, there are likely to be some violent consequences.
Read more from the original source:
2020 Dem candidate opposes mandatory gun buybacks not because of the 2nd Amendment, but because of police brutality - TheBlaze
Posted: at 4:45 am
By Kylie Chisholm, Special to the Telegram and Gazette
STURBRIDGE - A Sturbridge man is making his mark in the gun community with his YouTube series "Riding Shotgun with Charlie."
Charlie Cook was inspired by shows like "Carpool Karaoke" and "Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee" when he started his series. Cook wanted to talk to locals in the gun community from the comfort of his own vehicle and started making videos doing just that.
Cook interviewed a friend whose story was featured in the book "Lessons from Unarmed America" by Mark Walters and Rob Pincus. Walters connected Cook to the Second Amendment Foundation, an organization dedicated to educating people about the constitutional right to bear arms and the gun control debate.
"I was given the opportunity to speak at the Gun Rights Policy Conference for the past four years," said Cook. The Second Amendment Foundation has hosted the conference annually for 34 years.
Cook was presented with the Blogger of the Year award at this year's conference, last month in Phoenix. This was the first year the award extended to video bloggers, known as vloggers.
The conference had more than 1,100 attendees and 90 speakers. Cook said the panels covered a variety of perspectives on gun safety and gun laws.
Cook posts his content to a variety of platforms. His videos are posted to his YouTube and Facebook pages, and the audio is posted as podcasts available from Apple Podcasts, Spotify, IHeart Radio and Google Play.
Attending national conferences has allowed Mr. Cook to interview people across the country. He said at this year's Gun Rights Policy Conference he interviewed several people for the series during his time in Phoenix.
Since starting the show, Cook said, he is amazed at how generous the community has been to him.
"The people I have met doing this are the greatest people," said Cook. He said his guests are always willing to help and share their stories about why they are pro-gun activists.
Cook hopes to spend next summer traveling across the country interviewing people for the series. He also works as a firearm instructor in Massachusetts.
Posted: at 4:45 am
WASHINGTON It's never just a deal.
President Donald Trump's penchant for overselling his accomplishments has been on vivid display in recent days as he hailed his Syria cease-fire as a boon for civilization and claimed his trade agreement with China was the biggest ever. The economy is the "greatest" ''in the history of our Country," the military is the "most powerful" it has ever been, regulations have been cut at record rates, and, in his telling, America is "winning, winning, winning" like never before.
Trump has been a master of the art of exaggeration for decades, as he famously explained in his 1987 book, "The Art of the Deal."
"People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular," he wrote. "I call it truthful hyperbole. It's an innocent form of exaggeration, and a very effective form of promotion."
A search of Trump's Twitter feed turns up more than 1,200 mentions of the words "biggest," ''best" and "smartest."
Critics, for their part, accuse him of creating problems in order to solve them essentially setting fires and then demanding credit for putting them out.
Here's a look at some recent inflated claims.
THS SYRIA CEASE-FIRE
Trump made big news Thursday when he announced that Vice President Mike Pence and other top administration officials had secured a five-day cease-fire deal with Turkey in northeast Syria something Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had said he wouldn't do.
Trump quickly took credit, insisting his "unconventional approach" including a pullback of U.S. troops that paved the way for a Turkish invasion targeting Syrian Kurds was responsible.
Rather than bemoaning the loss of life that resulted, Trump spent much of Thursday minimizing the carnage and hailing the deal in epic proportions.
"It's really a great day for civilization," Trump said. He insisted that because of his intervention, "millions of lives will be saved."
"What Turkey is getting now is they're not going to have to kill millions of people, and millions of people aren't going to have to kill them," Trump said. In all, over the more than eight years of Syria's devastating civil war, hundreds of thousands have been killed.
THE CHINA DEAL
Trump last week announced with great fanfare a reprieve in the U.S.-China trade war that has resulted in tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of goods.
"The deal I just made with China is, by far, the greatest and biggest deal ever made for our Great Patriot Farmers in the history of our Country," Trump tweeted the day after. "In fact, there is a question as to whether or not this much product can be produced? Our farmers will figure it out. Thank you China!"
But despite his big talk, there is much left to be done, with many details to be determined and no documents signed. And some of the thorniest issues such as U.S. allegations that China forces foreign companies to hand over trade secrets and a major dispute over the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei were dealt with only partially, or not at all, and will require further talks.
"The president is acting as if a lot of Chinese concessions have been nailed down, and they just haven't," said Derek Scissors, a China specialist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
Plenty of politicians criticize their rivals for having a bad idea or pushing ill-conceived policies. Trump paints them as an existential threat to the Republic and democracy. Throughout the 2016 campaign, the 2018 midterms and at his recent rallies, Trump has demonized Democrats as the enemy, claiming Thursday that they are out to "destroy America as we know it."
"At stake in this fight is the survival of American democracy itself," he told the crowd at a Dallas campaign rally. "I don't believe anymore that they love our country."
He warns the stock market will crash if he loses, and says Democrats want to destroy health care and repeal the Second Amendment.
HIS CROWD SIZE
Trump's exaggerations of his crowd sizes are well documented. On Thursday night he offered a doozy.
"So outside, they have close to 30,000 people," he reported to the enthusiastic crowd. Then he asked local officials whether they might be able to "fill up this little area, let 'em in. It would be so nice."
"You know they have a certain max," he added. "We broke the record tonight."
Tamika Dameron, a public information officer with the Dallas Police Department, said that wasn't even close.
The Dallas Fire-Rescue Department and American Airlines Center calculated the total number inside was 18,500, less than the 20,000 or so capacity of the arena, and said there were "about 5,000 on the outside."
During the Mavericks 2011 NBA Finals series, the highest attendance at the American Airlines Center was 20,433.
Associated Press writers Jake Bleiberg and Stephen Hawkins in Dallas contributed to this report.
Read the original here:
The art of the boast: Trump's a master - Star Tribune
Posted: October 16, 2019 at 5:39 pm
Published: 10/11/2019 2:12:49 PM
Modified: 10/11/2019 2:12:37 PM
I am not a constitutional scholar, by any means, but there is something about the way that everyone speaks about the Second Amendment to the Constitution that is very puzzling to me.
The Second Amendment is simply one sentence, containing two ideas. The first idea is almost never mentioned in discussion of the amendment. The only thing ever mentioned is the second idea: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Why does the first idea never get mentioned? A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
That part of the sentence gives me the impression that people who keep and bear arms are meant to be part of a well-regulated militia, like, for example, the state National Guard. That would be quite a change. It would mean that people who use guns would need to be registered as part of a militia. That is, they would undergo some sort of group basic training, and regular periodic reviews to maintain their skills.
Why is this half of the Second Amendment never discussed and certainly never implemented?
Read the original post:
Marianne Preger-Simon: Why is half of the Second Amendment ignored? - GazetteNET
Posted: at 5:39 pm
The Supreme Court will hear a gun control case in December that could significantly limit the ability of state and local governments to regulate guns for public safety reasons.
The case involves a New York City regulation on transporting handguns that was repealed in July. Although that original rule is no longer in effect, for now the court has not determined the matter to be moot, so the case will move forward.
In this dispute and others, opposition to gun regulations is often grounded on the premise that once an individual interest is identified as a fundamental right, that interest prevails over all countervailing public concerns.
That premise is profoundly mistaken. And, importantly, it is inconsistent with the way that constitutional doctrine has developed with other fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Second Amendment rights should be treated no more favorably, despite the political rhetoric of gun rights supporters who claim that any firearm regulation is an unconstitutional infringement on their rights.
Of course, a constitutional right does carry with it a strong presumption against government interference with that particular activity, even though the exercise of the right involves a societal cost. We protect freedom of religion, for example, even though we know that some religious practices like pulling children out of school after the eighth grade might be considered problematic or harmful.
But there is a critical difference between assigning a high value to a constitutional right when balancing it against social concerns, and arguing that the right necessarily overrides the publics ability to regulate that activity in ways that may be needed to protect the community.
The doctrine surrounding freedom of speech is instructive. No one doubts that speech rights are taken seriously in America. Yet the right to free speech is not absolute and can be regulated in numerous circumstances. Courts subject government regulations that affect speech to different standards of review that balance the publics interest against the individuals liberty. Among factors considered are the kind of speech involved and the location and manner of the restriction.
For example, a ban on rallies on public streets in residential neighborhoods after 9 p.m. would likely be upheld even though it burdens speech, so long as the law did not discriminate based on the message rally speakers expressed.
So too with protections for personal privacy under the 4th Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. That amendment doesnt bar all searches and seizures, but instead requires that such intrusions be reasonable, a concept that inherently involves some kind of balancing of interests. Hence, we all must endure airport security screening searches because they are a reasonable means to protect air travel safety.
The individual right to bear arms for self-defense, as announced by the Supreme Court in 2008, is likewise not unlimited. Even though the court in that case struck down a flat ban on possession of handguns that might be used for self-defense in peoples homes, it observed that states could for historical and public-policy safety reasons prohibit people with felony convictions or people with mental illness from possessing guns, demonstrating that the very scope of the 2nd Amendments protection takes account of countervailing public objectives. For instance, some states require that gun owners keep their firearms locked up if there are children living in the home, even though gun owners might prefer easier access to firearms for self-defense.
Or consider the contours of self-defense itself. A 2nd Amendment right to keep guns for self-defense does not eliminate the need for society to think about how guns should be responsibly employed, even in self-defense situations. If someone uses a gun purportedly for self-defense purposes and kills another person, the 2nd Amendment does not preclude an evaluation of whether the alleged threat was sufficient to justify the use of deadly force or whether the killing involved excessive force because reasonable non-lethal alternatives were available for the shooter to defend himself.
The national debate now has focused on proposed regulations such as background checks and assault weapons bans. Whether specific measures would be permissible under the Constitution depends on their particulars, but the big point is that particulars matter.
In evaluating gun control regulations, its legitimate to take into account the social harms and risks arising from individuals keeping, bearing and using firearms. Constitutional analysis of the 2nd Amendment, as with other fundamental rights, requires some kind of balancing of interests, which includes considering the states need to promote public safety.
Vikram D. Amar is dean and professor of law at the University of Illinois College of Law. Alan E. Brownstein is professor of law at the UC Davis School of Law.
Continue reading here:
Opinion: What the gun lobby gets wrong about the 2nd Amendment - Los Angeles Times
Posted: at 5:38 pm
Mickelle Bisbee Staff Writer
Since the United States of America has a militia that is necessary for the security of keeping this nation free, the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and according to the second amendment of the constitution, that right shall not be infringed.
This amendment has become a heated conversation between political parties, asking whether laws concerning guns shall be stricter or not. To come and talk about this issue is Lucas Botkin, CEO of T-REX ARMS.
[Turning Point USA] likes Lucas because he is bold and passionate, two things which certainly make him stand out, said Lily Guthrie, president of the Recognized Student Organization, Turning Point USA. This event is one everyone can enjoy and find informational because the topic of guns and the 2nd amendment is not an everyday event here on campus.
Today from 6 to 8 p.m. in the College of Agriculture Auditorium, Botkin will be breaking down the firearm culture and how that culture affects peoples views on guns, according to his Instagram post on the event.
Students should be interested in this event because issues such as guns and the 2nd amendment impact their daily lives, no matter what views they hold on the subject they owe it to themselves to hear all sides of the argument and be as informed as possible, Guthrie said.
Guthrie said that they chose Botkin to come to the university and talk to students because of his passion and expertise on firearms and the 2nd amendment.
The 26-year-old took a leap into starting his company in 2013. With little money, he began playing around with Kydex, a type of thermoplastic, and was making holsters with the material for himself and a few others.
After a while, he decided that it would be a good idea for him to build a company to make high-end products that dont exist in the market right now, according to an interview he had with ARBuildJunkie.
When it began, all I had was a very small toaster oven that cost about five dollars at Goodwill. In total, I started the company for about 1,000 dollars, Botkin said in the ARBuildJunkie interview. At first, the products were not that great. But as time went on, I started experimenting with new designsthe first of which was the Sidecar [a T-REX ARMS holster].
As someone who is an expert in his field, Guthrie said she is excited to see students get exposure on the different views of firearms and to learn something from Botkin.
People interested in Botkin can follow him on his social media platforms for updates and videos on his products, as well as education insights on the 2nd amendment: Facebook at T.REX ARMS and Instagram at lucastrexarms.
Go here to see the original:
CEO talks second amendment freedom - The Branding Iron
Weiser: Sheriffs Will Enforce Red Flag Orders When Faced With Reality Of Dangerous People – Colorado Public Radio
Posted: at 5:38 pm
Weiser and House Majority Leader Alec Garnett are working together on the details for implementation.
The law, set to take effect Jan. 1, 2020, will allow judges to issue Extreme Risk Protection Orders at the request of family members or law enforcement. It would require police to temporarily remove guns from a person they fear could be dangerous or suicidal.
Critics say the law goes too far in infringing on Second Amendment rights and doesnt do enough to protect the due process rights of gun owners. Gun rights groups have held sessions for firearms owners around the state, warning them of ways they believe the law could be abused.
Some sheriffs have said they will not enforce it and a number of county commissions have passed resolutions to prevent local law enforcement from carrying out ERPOs.
Almost all those ordinances say the following, we dont want our sheriff in our county to implement an unconstitutional gun law to which I have always said in those counties, I dont either, Weiser said. And the extreme risk protection law is constitutional and will be upheld.
A Second Amendment rights group has challenged the law in court, arguing state lawmakers violated legislative rules when they passed it. Weiser has asked for that suit to be dismissed.
Weiser said if a sheriff refused to comply with a judges ERPO, he could be held in contempt of court. In that situation, Weisers office would defend the judge if the sheriff appealed the decision.
State Rep. Garnett said he is working with law enforcement to give them maximum flexibility on how to retrieve the guns once an ERPO is handed down from a judge. That includes allowing law enforcement, with a warrant, to go into a house when someone isnt home.
Democratic Rep. Tom Sullivan, whose son died in the 2012 Aurora theater shooting, said Colorados soaring suicide rate is a good reason to get the controversial ERPO law right.
This is something that will save lives. Maybe not in the situation that affected my son Alex, he said while sharing a stage with Weiser. But three-quarters of the people in this state who died by gun violence died by suicide ... We can do something about that.