Category Archives: Second Amendment

Breitbart News reported that five persons were injured when66-year-oldJames T. Hodgkinson opened fire on Republican House and Senate members who were practicing baseball. Rep.Steve Scalise (R-LA) and four others were injured in the attack. Hodgkinson was shot and killed by police.

SAF sent Breitbart News a statement on the attack:

Todays shooting of Congressman Steve Scalise (R-LA), and others including an aide and two Capitol Police officers is the result of Democratic hate speech toward President Donald Trump and majority Republicans, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

This hate speech that has been going on since Donald Trump was elected, said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. It gets their voter base agitated and this is what happens as a result. Is this just a coincidence this happened on the presidents birthday?

The gunman has been identified as James Hodgkinson of Illinois. A Facebook page belonging to the fatally-wounded suspect suggests that he was a socialist Democrat, and was a follower of Sen. Bernie Sanders. Sanders confirmed that Hodgkinson was apparently a volunteer in his 2016 presidential campaign.

When liberal leftists support the assassination of President Trump on stage what do you expect to happen, Gottlieb stated. Hate speech and actions incite this kind of violence. It is time for Democrats like Reps. Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Chuck Schumer, Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton and many of the talking heads at CNN and MSNBC to shut up.

SAF also observed:

Congressman Scalise and others at the field this morning were lucky to have the protection of courageous Capitol police officers, the good guys with guns who took down a bad guy with a gun, he continued. But what if they hadnt been present?

Congressman Mike Bishop of Michigan, who was at the baseball field, told a reporter, The only reason why any of us walked out of this thing, by the grace of God, one of the folks here had a weapon to fire back and give us a moment to find cover.

Maybe now the anti-gun rights Democrats will support everyones right to carry a firearm for self-defense, Gottlieb said. We are the first line of defense when it comes to personal protection from crazed individuals.

Breitbart News spoke with SAFs Alan Gottlieb about the calls for more gun control that have already been made in reaction to the shooting. He responded, Democrats should ban their hate speech, not our guns for self-defense.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host of Bullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Follow this link:
Second Amendment Foundation: Alexandria Shooting the Result of ... - Breitbart News

Some things are predictable, some are not.

Not predictable was Wednesday mornings attack on members of Congress and their staffs, assembled for one of the most American of things, a baseball practice.

A gunman identified by authorities as James T. Hodgkinson fired a lot of shots after first asking, according to reports, if the players were Republicans. He learned they were and the gunfire commenced. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise was wounded, along with an aide to Texas Rep. Roger Williams and several others. The alleged gunman was killed.

It was the first shooting of a member of Congress since the 2011 attack on Rep. Gabby Giffords in the most American of settings, a shopping mall. Six people died that day in Tucson, Ariz., and 13 were wounded. The irony (?) is that Giffords was and is a gun owner and a supporter of the Second Amendment, and Scalise has a top rating from the NRA.

Those shootings were unpredictable.

What is totally predictable is the coming avalanche of screams for gun control, an amorphous phrase. If I cup my hand to my ear, I can begin to hear them now.

When you get down to specifics, such as universal background checks, they are unlikely to happen.

How can I predict that? Because the last time it was tried the 2013 billsponsored by Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin and Republican Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey it went down to defeat despite the approval of a large majority of Americans.

That relatively mild proposal supported by this gun-owning columnist with a carry permit got shot down (pun intended) largely through the efforts of the National Rifle Association.

If the deaths of 20 children and six teachers at Sandy Hookin 2012 didnt result in legislation, I doubt this will.

The gun-grabbers will blame the gun and call gun violence an epidemic, which it might be in some few areas looking at you, Chicago but is largely unknown in the vast majority of counties around the United States. There are 300 million weapons in the hands of 100 million Americans. That tells you the periodic, and unspeakable, slaughters are an aberration committed by criminals and the mentally unbalanced.

The gun problem is a Gordian knot because it entwines rights protected by the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments.

The only way to ban guns is to revoke the Second Amendment, and I invite anyone who wants to to try. It is almost impossible.

Even if you could ban them, will the U.S. government try to confiscate (buy back) the 300 million out there, as was done with legislation addressing the millions of guns inAustralia and the United Kingdom?

That could kick off a civil war, given the current political mood.

Guns are enshrined in our culture, but I admit the culture is changing.

Although more guns are out there, they are in fewer households.

The majority of Americans dont own guns, but havent been able to thwart the NRA and get access to whats called sensible gun control. I applaud their efforts, but I think they are futile until the culture changes more.

Once upon a time, cultural change was glacial. But when you see how quickly the culture shifted on gay marriage, for instance, there is optimism that America will be able to get stricter gun laws in the foreseeable future.

But a ban, I think, is still a bridge too far.

Published: June 14, 2017 11:02 AM EDT | Updated: June 14, 2017 12:17 PM EDT Philadelphia Daily News

We recently asked you to support our journalism. The response, in a word, is heartening. You have encouraged us in our mission to provide quality news and watchdog journalism. Some of you have even followed through with subscriptions, which is especially gratifying. Our role as an independent, fact-based news organization has never been clearer. And our promise to you is that we will always strive to provide indispensable journalism to our community. Subscriptions are available for home delivery of the print edition and for a digital replica viewable on your mobile device or computer. Subscriptions start as low as 25 per day. We're thankful for your support in every way.

More:
After a bloody baseball practice, guns remain king, but the culture is changing - Philly.com

Once again, anger coupled with a weapon has unleashed another strike against the heart of what we stand for as a society: democracy.

Again, heavily armed law enforcement, yellow police tape, along with shock, grief and tears are formidable reminders of the aftermath we as a society must deal with after another man with a weapon delivers another grim message.

This time, the gunman used a high-powered rifle to spray a reign of terror over Republican members of Congress while they held a morning baseball practice to get ready for the annual Congressional Baseball Game, a tradition since 1909.

When it was over, House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., along with two Capitol police officers, Crystal Griner and David Bailey, congressional staffer Zach Barth and lobbyist Matt Mika all were wounded. Scalise and Mika were listed in critical condition as of Wednesday evening.

Advertisement

The gunman, identified as 66-year-old James T. Hodgkinson III from Illinois, drives home how vulnerable we continue to be as a society of free will where the rights of people are paramount. The gunman was killed, but thankfully no others were. Lawmakers agree that but for the actions of Capitol police on the scene, the carnage could have been much worse.

According to the New York Times, Hodgkinson was distraught over the election of President Donald Trump and he was a supporter of 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.

We have been down this road before and though the names of the wounded and the dead change, the message to the United States remains the same: there are too many guns on the streets of America and too many with the wrong fingers on the trigger.

But a division of opinions, even in a hot political climate, shouldnt bring harm to those delivering a message or those supporting it.

So much of what we are and do as a society depends on the trust and allegiance of our fellow man and the ability to walk amongst each other unencumbered. But with more than 300 million guns on the streets and too many in the hands of the wrong people more solutions are needed.

No angry gunman will destroy what we are as a society, nor our determination to continue forth with our values as a nation.

Trump said, in part, we are blessed to be Americans, that our children deserve to grow up in a nation of safety and peace, and that we are strongest when we are unified and when we work together for the common good.

But to do that, Congress must come to grips with the difficulties of the Second Amendment and take action to tighten the nations gun laws.

Here in Connecticut, where we have some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, we are aware of that.

Every bullet that takes away another loved one or takes aim at another long cherished tradition, leaves us more disillusioned about our safety if Congress doesnt do something about the proliferation of guns.

Read the original:
Editorial: Congress must come to grips with difficulties of Second Amendment - New Haven Register

Media Matters for America

Fox guest says gay people at Pulse vigil "probably don't know what the Second Amendment is" Media Matters for America Most gay people aren't political. Most gay people, you know, they care about pop music and going to the beach. They probably don't know what the Second Amendment is. And so they show up to be together, to celebrate the community, to mourn together and ...

See the article here:
Fox guest says gay people at Pulse vigil "probably don't know what the Second Amendment is" - Media Matters for America

In the world of boneheaded marketing ploys, this has to rank as one of the boneheadedest.

Kendall Jenner and that dumb Pepsi ad? Move over.

Fliers from Second Amendment Sports, a local gun shop and shooting range, started showing up in mailboxes late last week.

Im just going to describe it verbatim.

The front has large, bold lettering announcing Juneteenth.

Above it is a drawing of an, apparently, African-American man with his arms raised overhead breaking a chain.

A photo of a white mans face has been imposed onto the drawing.

To the side, the flier states, Juneteenth, Dads & Grads Sale June 15th & 17th.

On the back (between clip art of shackled wrists breaking chains) it says:

Celebrate Juneteenth Dads & Grads.

Emancipate yourselves from the oppression of the man.

From your chores, from your school Buy a gun!

Take that boot off your neck and enjoy some great deals!

I found an explainer, sort of, about Juneteenth saying it is recognized mostly by black Americans and commemorates the end of the Civil War and the final Southern state of Texas announcing the emancipation of slaves. (I would argue with that interpretation, which Ill get to.)

It goes on to say that Second Amendment Sports is celebrating the date to remind people that all races at one time in history were enslaved and that freedom comes at a cost.

Buy a firearm and some ammunition and take your power back from a government that would prefer you to be a slave again! says the explainer.

Then theres a convoluted line about states' rights and keeping the Union together, presumably about the Civil War.

Remember Juneteenth, it ends. Know that it has relevance to all men.

So, that cleared up nothing about this ill-conceived ad campaign.

Just as a start, I wondered if Second Amendment had used Juneteenth as a sale-a-bration marketing concept before?

What was the response? Whats the response now?

Who's face is that photoshopped onto the drawing?

I did eventually get an email from Second Amendment Sports owner Matt Janes, who defended the fliers as opening a dialogue about the fragility of freedom for everyone.

He said this is the second year Second Amendment Sports has used the Juneteenth ad campaign and reaction has been "mixed."

"Some people choose to be offended," Janes wrote. "They do not feel it is our place to bring up U.S. history when it pertains to certain subjects. Like it is taboo or exclusive to only some. Others totally understand the meaning behind our advertisement. Others are 'Hunh? What's Juneteenth?'"

As to the face imposed on the drawing: "It is immaterial and largely the point of the image. It could be an ancestor, you, me, our children...that is the importance."

If nothing else, he wrote, he hopes the flier gets people talking.

The entire thing is disrespectful, said Jason Phillips. And to turn it (Juneteenth) into a political message to fan up emotion, which leads directly to more gun sales for them, is sickening.

Reactions on Facebook and elsewhere were similar, a mixture of outrage and derision.

I'm all for standing firm on civil liberties and slapping back government overreach. But I don't think coopting Juneteenth is the way to go.

To me, the flier and tortured explainer are boorish and just plain weird.

I mean, why not hawk high-caliber rifles on Holocaust Remembrance Day as "yellow badge repellant?"

Im not going to argue whether the fliers are also racist.

Anyone who doesnt find them racially offensive will get defensive and claim the other side is overly sensitive.

Thats a spin cycle that never ends.

Instead, hey, what exactly is Juneteenth?

I will admit that I didn't know until I covered the Bill Pickett Invitational Rodeo, an all black rodeo, which happened to be touring in Bakersfield on Juneteenth some years back.

To me, Juneteenth is bittersweet in a lot of ways.

It recognizes the end of slavery, yes.

But it came to 250,000 slaves in Texas on June 19, 1865, two months after the official end of the Civil War.

And 2 1/2 years after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued by President Abraham Lincoln in January 1863.

And the state of Texas certainly did not announce it, as implied by Second Amendment Sports' explainer.

Union Gen. Gordon Granger landed in Galveston with 2,000 troops to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation.

Granger made it his first order of business to stand on a balcony and read aloud:

The people of Texas are informed that, in accordance with a proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of personal rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves, and the connection heretofore existing between them becomes that between employer and hired labor.

Today, Juneteenth is typically marked with gatherings of family and friends, food, remembrances and prayer.

Its a recognition, a friend told me.

That sounds right. A recognition. Not a door buster.

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry. Her column runs Wednesdays and Sundays. Comment at http://www.bakersfield.com, call her at 661-395-7373 or emaillhenry@bakersfield.comfollow her on Twitter @loishenry or on Facebook at Lois Henry.

Continue reading here:
LOIS HENRY: Use of Juneteenth as marketing ploy to sell guns doesn't go over well - The Bakersfield Californian

Yes, says the New Jersey (!) Supreme Court in yesterdays unanimous State v. Montalvo opinion; here are the facts, from the courts syllabus:

This appeal concerns whether an individual may lawfully possess and hold a weapon for self-defense in his home while answering the front door.

Defendant Crisoforo Montalvo and his wife lived directly above Arturs Daleckis and his wife. On the night of March 24, 2012, Daleckis grew agitated by noise emanating from Montalvos unit; he stood on his bed and knocked on the ceiling three or four times. Montalvo then proceeded downstairs and knocked on Daleckiss door. Montalvo picked up a small table belonging to Daleckis and threw it off the front porch, breaking it.

After Montalvo returned to his unit, Daleckis knocked on the door. Montalvo and his wife testified that they heard knocking, kicking, and slamming on the door. Montalvo testified that he became scared for himself, his wife, and their unborn child. As a precautionary measure, Montalvo retrieved a machete from a closet as he moved to answer the door. Daleckis testified that Montalvo pointed the machete at him. Montalvo testified that he kept the machete in his hand, behind his leg, and below his waist while speaking with Daleckis.

Montalvo was acquitted of possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose (Count One, in the discussion below) but convicted of unlawful possession of a weapon (Count Two). At trial, the judge included a self-defense instruction as to the unlawful-purpose charge but didnt give it as to the unlawful-possession charge.

During deliberations, the jury sent the trial judge a note asking, Second charge, unlawful possession of a weapon, is self[-]defense considered a lawful use?.' The judge responded thus:

I remind you that it is necessary for the State to prove that it, meaning the object[,] was possessed under such circumstances that a reasonable person would recognize that it was likely to be used as a weapon. In other words, under circumstances where it posed a likely threat of harm to others and/or a likely threat of damage to property, you may consider factors such as the surrounding circumstances as well as the size, shape, and condition of the object; the nature of its concealment; the time, place and actions of the defendant; when it was found in his possession to determine whether or not the object was manifestly appropriate for its lawful uses.

This statute is 2C:39-5(d). Section 5(d) prohibits the possession of implements as weapons even if possessed for precautionary purposes, except in situations of immediate and imminent danger.

Although self[-]defense involves a lawful use of a weapon, it does not justify the unlawful possession of the weapon under Section 5(d) except when a person uses a weapon after arming himself or herself spontaneously to repel an immediate danger.

Obviously, there may be circumstances in which a weapon is seized in response to an immediate danger, but ensuing circumstances render its use unnecessary. Under such conditions, the individual may take immediate possession of the weapon out of necessity rather than self[-]defense. However, it would appear that the availability of necessity as a justification for the immediate possession of a weapon, as with self[-]defense, is limited only to cases of spontaneous and compelling danger. Please resume your deliberations.

But the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the judge should have instructed the jury as to self-defense:

[The unlawful-possession statute] prohibits the possession of any weapon, other than certain firearms, when an actor has not yet formed an intent to use [the] object as a weapon [but] possesses it under circumstances in which it is likely to be so used. [This] class of possessory weapons offenses is codified by N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d), which states that [a]ny person who knowingly has in his possession any other weapon under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses as it may have is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree. The purpose of Section 5(d) is to protect[] citizens from the threat of harm while permitting the use of objects such as knives in a manner consistent with a free and civilized society. The statute applies to circumstances resulting in a threat of harm to persons or property.

A machete constitutes a weapon within this statutory scheme. See N.J.S.A. 2C:39-1(r) (defining weapon as anything readily capable of lethal use or inflicting serious bodily injury); State v. Irizarry (N.J. App. Div. 1994) (observing N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d) concerns weapons such as knives and machetes[] that have both lawful and unlawful uses).

Self-defense is a potential defense to a possessory weapons offense. The Second Amendment guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation, D.C. v. Heller (2008) . It extends to all instruments that constitute bearable arms.

In Heller, the Supreme Court recognized that the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. New Jerseys statutes protect the right of self-defense. Generally, the use of force against another person is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by another.

The use of deadly force for self-defense is justifiable only when the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily injury, unless the actor provoked the use of force or knows he can safely retreat. Thus, the defensive conduct must be based on a reasonable belief of potential harm, and the defensive force must be proportional to the offensive force.

Montalvo legally possessed a machete in his home. It is of no matter whether his possession was for roofing or for self-defense because either would qualify as a lawful purpose. [T]he Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to possess weapons, including machetes, in the home for self-defense purposes. Thus, Montalvo had a constitutional right to possess the machete in his home for his own defense and that of his pregnant wife. Because the courts instructions did not convey this principle, the instructions were erroneous.

The State asserts that answering an angry knock at the door with a weapon in hand constitutes possession under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses as it may have. That position is untenable.

The right to possess a weapon in ones own home for self-defense would be of little effect if one were required to keep the weapon out-of-hand, picking it up only spontaneously. Such a rule would negate the purpose of possessing a weapon for defense of the home.

The court sent the case back for a possible retrial, so the jury could decide whether Montalvo indeed just used the machete for defensive purposes. (The state argued, for instance, that he also took it outside and chopped at the porch that he shared with Daleckis; if those were the facts, the court said, that would be an unlawful purpose, but if the facts were as Montalvo claimed they were, his conduct would be lawful self-defense.)

Finally, the court tried to avoid this problem in the future, by directing its Committee on Model Criminal Jury Charges to review and revise the model jury instruction for the unlawful possession offense:

We suggest the following language for the Committees consideration in refashioning the charge: Determining whether the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant possessed a weapon in his home under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for a lawful use requires special considerations. Persons may lawfully possess weapons in their homes, even though possession of those same weapons may not be manifestly appropriate outside the home. Using a twelve-inch steak knife in a kitchen to prepare dinner is lawful and possessing it as means of defense in case of a home invasion is lawful as well; carrying the same knife on the street on the way to pick up groceries may not be manifestly appropriate.

Individuals may possess in their homes objects that serve multiple lawful purposes, including the purpose of anticipatory self-defense. In this case, Montalvo possessed at home a machete he used in his roofing job. He was lawfully entitled to possess that machete as a weapon in his home as a means of defending himself and his family from attack as well. The right to possess that weapon, however, does not mean that it can be used without justification.

An individual who responds to the door of his home with a concealed weapon that threatens no one acts within the bounds of the law. He need give no justification for what he is lawfully allowed to do.

On the other hand, an individual may not threaten another with a weapon, even within the confines of his home, without lawful justification. Thus, Montalvo could not answer the door threatening the use of a machete merely for the purpose of inciting fear in another. He could threaten the use of the machete, however, if he had a sincere or reasonable belief that the show of such force was necessary to protect himself or his wife from an imminent attack.

The burden always remains on the State to prove that defendant did not lawfully possess the weapon in his home or, if the weapon was threatened against another, that possession of the weapon was not manifestly appropriate for the purpose of self-defense.

Sounds right to me, at least as to home possession. (What is the proper scope of the Second Amendment outside the home is a hotly contested matter, on which courts have split, and which the Supreme Court is currently being asked to consider, in the Peruta petition.)

Read the rest here:
Second Amendment right to meet people at the door with a machete ... - Washington Post

Eugene Volokh is tackling a less common Second Amendment argument this week. It stems from a recent decision made by the New Jersey state supreme court involving a resident who was convicted of Unlawful Possession of a Weapon. The crime in question was the fact that there was a dispute going on with a neighbor in his apartment complex and when he came pounding on the door, the defendant answered the door with a machete in his hand. He may or may not have pointed it at the unruly neighbor (stories conflict on that point) but he definitely didnt injure or even attack the person. The state supreme court overturned the conviction and sent the case back for a new trial with different instructions from the judge because the defendants rights had been violated.

This leads Volokh to answer another question which he apparently gets fairly often from people who dont follow the subject closely. Are swords, knifes, machetes and other blade weapons covered by the Second Amendment? We spend so much of our time talking about guns that this area of hardware doesnt come up very often. His conclusions: (The Volokh Conspiracy, Washington Post)

This should be obvious, I think: The Second Amendment protects arms, and the D.C. v. Heller opinion discusses bows and knives as examples of such arms; opinions in the 1800s and 1900s dealing with state constitutional rights to bear arms also mention bladed weapons; and post-Heller opinions, such as from courts in Connecticut, Michigan, and Wisconsin agree. But some have disagreed the Massachusetts government in the Caetano stun gun case before the Massachusetts high court, for instance, argued that Heller was limited to firearms. The New Jersey decision should be a helpful precedent, then, for other non-gun cases (though of course it doesnt dispose of the question of exactly what weapons are protected, and where they can be possessed).

The Constitution Society has a handy document you might want to bookmark which covers this, as well as many other questions on related topics. In it, they go into a bit more detail about precisely what the Founders intended and what classes of weapons should be covered. (Emphasis added)

The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define arms. When it was adopted, arms included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare. That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line.

Personally, they go a bit further over the gray line that must be drawn between personal weaponry and group combat weapons for my taste (grenade launchers and anti-tank missiles seem a bit heavy handed) but thats mostly about right I think. Keep in mind that not everyone could afford a firearm at the time of the nations founding and many may have been making do with a bow, a knife or even a farm implement. Im not sure how common swords were for the layman at the time (good ones were also historically quite expensive) but that would have to fall into the same class.

Its also commonly noted in literature of the time that people signing up for militia duty would need to be provided with a rifle if they couldnt afford their own. This, by the way, is where we get the term well regulated because regulated in that context meant properly supplied. But in any event, Volokh has some good information in both of the articles linked above which I thought you might find useful. And since weve recently seen them used by terrorists, might the Second Amendment also cover hammers if you were holding one when you answered the door? Since you can clearly kill someone with a well placed hammer blow Id have to say yes. Same for baseball bats.

Visit link:
Does the Second Amendment cover edged weapons? - Hot Air

The New Jersey machete decision is important because it rejects a spontaneity requirement for arming yourself at home (the states theory that you could pick up a weapon against an imminent attack, but you cant come to the door with the weapon just in case). But its also important because it reaffirms that the Second Amendment protects not just guns but other weapons as well.

This should be obvious, I think: The Second Amendment protects arms, and the D.C. v. Heller opinion discusses bows and knives as examples of such arms; opinions in the 1800s and 1900s dealing with state constitutional rights to bear arms also mention bladed weapons; and post-Heller opinions, such as from courts in Connecticut, Michigan, and Wisconsin agree. But some have disagreed the Massachusetts government in the Caetano stun gun case before the Massachusetts high court, for instance, argued that Heller was limited to firearms. The New Jersey decision should be a helpful precedent, then, for other non-gun cases (though of course it doesnt dispose of the question of exactly what weapons are protected, and where they can be possessed).

Read the original:
The Second Amendment protects some bladed weapons, and not just firearms - Washington Post

After her car broke down out of Lewiston, Idaho, a young woman accepted a ride from a man who was driving a marked company van. Later, a fisherman snagged one of her body parts out of the Snake River. She didnt have a concealed pistol permit.

An older lady, again in Lewiston, was brutally murdered, by a sex offender, while taking an evening walk in the park. She didnt have a concealed pistol permit.

While living in the Spokane region, I read about a woman who was stabbed to death while walking on one of the paved trails in the city. She didnt have a concealed pistol permit.

Another woman was kidnapped by two men and thrown, purse and all, into a cars trunk. While in the trunk, the woman retrieved her Smith & Wesson Snub Nose .38 revolver from her purse. When the trunk was opened, the woman shot both of her assailants. She had a concealed pistol permit.

Our graveyards are full of people who died needlessly because they had no way to defend themselves. The latest incident occurred in Portland where two citizens, trying to prevent a hate crime, were stabbed to death by a violent ex-convict who had repeatedly been released from prison after committing serious crimes.

Its ironic that our soft-on-crime liberals/progressives continually release vicious criminals to prey on us, and then suggest that the solution for crime is to take legally owned firearms away from the law-abiding. Thats typical liberal lunacy.

Now that the Republican Party, the party of liberty, is back in control well have at least a four-year respite from the Democratic Partys war on our rights to keep and bear arms. I note, too, that the subversive anti-gun lobby and its network of useful idiots, from Walla Walla to New York, have been deafeningly silent since the election.

Again, we were given the Second Amendment so that we could defend ourselves and our nation.

Now that were finally free, lets take advantage of our Second Amendment rights, which includes the right for law-abiding people to carry concealed arms for self-defense against the monsters.

Here is the original post:
Use Second Amendment rights and arm yourself - Walla Walla Union-Bulletin

A year ago, Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives staged a sit-in demanding a vote on federal gun-safety bills following the shootings at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. The National Rifle Associations lobbying was largely blamed for no vote happening. But looking deeper, the Second Amendment with the unique American individualism wrapped around it underlies all. It is Americas fundamental gun problem.

As Michael Waldman at the Brennan Center for Justice suggests in Politico Magazine (2014), the NRAs construing of the Second Amendment as an unconditional right to own and carry guns (a right beyond actual constitutional law in Supreme Court rulings) is why it thrives and has clout.

Without clout derived from Second Amendment hyperbole, we might not have, for instance, stand your ground laws in more than 20 states starting with Florida in 2005, laws that professors Cheng Cheng and Mark Hoekstra report in the Journal of Human Resources (2013) do not deter crime and are associated with more killing.

Pockets of America were waiting for the NRAs Second Amendment fertilizer.

For many gun advocates, the gun is an important aspect of ones identity and self-worth, a symbol of power and prowess in their cultural groups. Dan Kahan at Yale University with co-investigators studied gun-safety perceptions and wrote in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (2007) how those most likely to see guns as safest of all were the persons who need guns the most in order to occupy social roles and display individual virtues within their cultural communities.

Or, as the essayist Alec Wilkinson writes more starkly on The New Yorkers website (2012), although the [gun] issue is treated as a right and a matter of democracy underlying all is that a gun is the most powerful device there is to accessorize the ego.

A gun owner carrying his semiautomatic long rifle into a family department store, like Target, in a state permitting such if asked why will likely say because it is his right. He is unlikely to reveal the self-gratification gained from demonstrating the prowess and power of his identity, gained from using the gun to accessorize the ego. The Second Amendment here is convenient clothing to cover deeper unspoken needs, needs that go beyond the understandable pleasures and functions of typical hunting, for instance.

Australia is often mentioned as an example of nationwide gun-safety legislation reducing gun violence. Following the 1996 massacre of 35 people in Port Arthur, Australia, the government swiftly passed substantial gun-safety legislation. And as Professors Simon Chapman, Philip Alpers and Michael Jones wrote in JAMAs June 2016 issue, [F]rom 1979-1996 (before gun law reforms), 13 fatal mass shootings occurred in Australia, whereas from 1997 through May 2016 (after gun-law reforms), no fatal mass shootings occurred.

But Australia also has nothing akin to the Second Amendment.

Anthropologist Abigail Kohn studied gun owners in the U.S. and Australia who were engaged in sport shooting. She describes in the Journal of Firearms and Public Policy (2004) how it is immediately apparent when speaking to American shooters that they find it impossible to separate their gun ownership, even their interest in sport shooting, from a particular moral discourse around self, home, family, and national identity.

And thus, American shooters are hostile to gun control because just as guns represent freedom, independence the best of American core values gun control represents trampling on those core values.

In contrast, the Australians view guns as inseparable from shooting sports. And perhaps most importantly, Australian shooters believe that attending to gun laws, respecting the concept of gun laws, is a crucial part of being a good shooter; this is the essence of civic duty that Australian shooters conflate with being a good Australian. While the Australian shooters thought some gun-safety policies were useless and stupid, they thought that overall gun-safety measures were a legitimate means by which the government can control the potential violence that guns can do.

Unlike Australia (itself an individualist-oriented country), America has the Second Amendment. And that amendment has fostered a unique individualism around the gun, an individualism perpetrating more harm than safety.

Maybe someday the Second Amendment will no longer reign as a prop serving other purposes and, thus, substantive federal gun-safety legislation happens. But as Professor Charles Collier wrote in Dissent Magazine: Unlimited gun violence is, for the foreseeable future, our [Americas] fate and our doom (and, in a sense, our punishment for [Second Amendment] rights-based hubris).

The Second Amendment, today, is a song of many distorted verses. A song of a uniquely American tragedy.

Fred Decker is a sociologist in Bowie, Md., with a background in health and social policy research. He earned his doctorate from Florida State University.

The rest is here:
Second Amendment: An American tragedy - Orlando Sentinel