Category Archives: Second Amendment

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Yes indeed, the Second Amendment does save.

The latest instance of a gun saving a potential victim from a would-be crime comes by way of Oklahoma, where a Poteau resident, acting quickly, shot and killed a neighbor who was trying to drown his own twin, 3-month-old babies in a bathtub.

KFOR-TV reported Leland Foster, 27, was killed by his neighbor, Cash Freeman. The details?

City of Ada spokeswoman Lisa Bratcher told reporters that [Foster] died from gunshot wound after a 12-year-old girl ran from the home and alerted a neighbor for help, Fox News reported. Bratcher said the neighbor, identified as Cash Freeman, told police he went to the home armed with a handgun and shot Foster twice after seeing him holding the infants under water in a bathtub while threatening the childrens mother with a knife.

Sick.

Whats more, Foster, it was later learned, had been arrested in 2011 for domestic abuse by strangulation and arson.

Good thing Freeman had a gun. The babies were taken to the hospital and reported in stable condition.

He saved their lives by shooting Foster.

But now? Now Freemans worried he may face charges.

The district attorneys office is apparently deciding the matter now. But lets be real here: Only in the lefts mind would Freeman be considered criminal.

To everyone else to all the sane-thinking of the country?

Freemans a hero. A fast-acting, quick-thinking, cape-wearing hero. He couldve simply dialed 9-1-1 and waited probably too late for the police to arrive. He couldve dismissed the 12-year-old as delusional. He couldve done nothing stayed in his home, refused to answer the door, turned up the television to drown out the knocking.

Instead, he grabbed his gun and raced to the rescue. And because of that decision because of the fact, too, America has a Second Amendment that allows for private citizens to own weapons for this very purpose of self-defense and saving two little 3-month-old babies are still alive and well.

Let the lefties lurking in the political background, looking for reasons to strip innocent Americans of their firearms and occasions to blot the Second Amendment from the Constitution, chew on that for a while.

The rest is here:
2nd Amendment saves, as Oklahoman shoots babies' would-be killer - Washington Times

Rex Alphin is pro-life, pro Second Amendment, his NRA rating is better than his opponents, and he appreciates the agricultural lifestyle the 64th District is known for and thats why Im voting for him. Rex believes in his community so much that he has owned and operated three businesses in his district, his opponents business is not in the 64th.

His opponent said she has never raised taxes, how could she? Shes never held any elected position to be faced with that hard reality. Tax hikes have been a major thorn, have we forgotten why taxes had to be raised? The board of supervisors, of which Rex is serving, unanimously voted to raise taxes because of the irresponsible misuse of taxpayer funds that the previous board used to saddle Isle of Wight with huge amounts of unnecessary debt. His opponent signed a Taxpayer Protection Pledge stating she wont raise taxes - maybe thats unrealistic. I dont want another broken promise, I want pro-active leadership. When you make tall promises, you always fall short. Rex is realistic and words mean something to him, he knows you dont have to be the loudest voice in the room to be effective.

As for fundraising, I would rather have a candidate whos raised more money from his district than someone whos raised their majority outside the 64th, check out cfreports.sbe.virginia.gov. Candidates need to be accountable to their constituents, not outside political forces. And what a shame political forces within local GOP groups think you are so ignorant that they banded together to tell everyone to vote for Rexs opponent. Thats what the establishment and Democrats do.

Lastly, things have been said about all the nice letters for Rex. Honor, integrity, faith, commitment, and passion for family and community mean a great deal to Rex and it means something to me. Rex isnt perfect, but hes not a flash in the pan.

Jennifer Boykin, Carrsville, Virginia

Read the rest here:
Rex Alphin supports the Second Amendment - Progress Index

By Roger J. Katz, Attorney at Law and Stephen L. D'Andrilli KOLBE VS. HOGAN: PART EIGHT

New York, NY -(Ammoland.com)- Those lower federal district courts and higher federal circuit courts of appeal that seek to disarm Americans, do so in clear denigration of the core of the second amendment and in clear defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court decision and reasoning in Heller.

When deconstructing the history of Kolbe, (Kolbe vs. OMalley, 42. F. Supp. 3d 768 (D. Md. 2014); vacated and remanded, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 813 F.3d 160(4th Cir. 2016); revd en banc, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017)), legal commentators and laymen generally ignore the issue whether the prefatory militia clause still constrains the right of the people to keep and bear arms. They do so for an obvious reason. After all, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570; 128 S. Ct. 2783; 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with an individuals service in a militia. Thus, one might reasonably assume that a sacred shibboleth of the antigun movement and of the antigun movements benefactors in Congress, in the media, in finance, and in several ofthe Courts, may finally be laid to rest.

Yet, that isnt true at all.

Those opposed to Heller'srulingsmaintain the case was wrongly decided and must, at some point, be overturned. Those jurists who share the antigun establishment's sympathies thereupon render rulings as if Heller never existed. The influence of old dogma sets in and pervades judicial opinions. One, though,should not be surprised about this.After all, the Heller case was decided narrowly, sharply demarcated along liberal wing/conservative wing lines.

Those Justices opposed to the Heller rulings made clear their disagreement of and, indeed, their disdain for the methodology employed by,the positions embraced by,and the legal and logical conclusions deducedfrom the premises accepted by the Court's majority in reaching their conclusions.For, theHeller Court majority accepted,as axiomatic,and, in the first instance, that the right of the people tokeep and bear arms is a natural right,preexistent in man and not a privilege bestowed on man by the State, through Government. It is Government that is an artificial construct, not the rights and liberties, codified in the Bill of Rights. Thissacred principal, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms isa natural right, preexistent in man,is consistent with theframers'belief concerning the concept of natural rights, inherent in man. Such rights and liberties, preexistent in man, forever rest beyond the power of the State, through itsGovernment, to intrude upon and to destroy. This sacred precept, the dissenting Justices, in Heller, would not accept, could not accept,would never accept.Thus, the conclusions they reached in Heller were the opposite to, diametrically opposed tothose conclusions drawn by the Court's majority. The philosophical differences dividing liberal wing and conservative wing Justices are much ingrained, and marked. Those philosophical differences manifest in the Courts majority opinion and in the two dissenting opinions. Those differences continue to play out in the rulings and reasoning of the judges who sit on the lower U.S. District Courts and on the higher U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal. The differences cannot be reconciled. They will never be resolved. The differences are deep set, visceral, as well as intellectual. Surely, the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court were aware of thenature of and extent of thephilosophical differences that lay between them, that informed theirnotionsof the individual's relation to Government. Theypushed back and pushed backhardagainst the majority opinion in Heller, written by Scalia. But the dissenting opinions in Heller, penned by Justices Stevens and Breyer, who also concurred in each other's opinions,in Heller are legally and logically weak. Thereasoningof the dissenting Justicesislogically faulty, ofteninternallyinconsistent, incoherent, and clearlyantithetical to the framers' ideas concerning the fundamental rights and liberties of Americans.

But the dissenting Justices, unlike the majority in Heller, whose conclusions follow from sound premises, cannot overcome a singular hurdle. It is a hurdlethat weakens their position and ultimately makes their position untenable, ultimately reducingtheir argumentto a reductio ad absurdum. The dissenting Justices must accept one premise that is a basic assumption of the Heller Court majority, namely that the right of the people to keep and bear arms can,at least in theory,under the dissenting Justices' thesis, be vindicated. This is critical. For, ifthe right of the people tokeep and bear arms cannot be vindicated,then the right does not exist, and the right codified in theSecond Amendment reduces the Second Amendment to a nullity asthe right sits empty in the Second Amendment, as abald face lie. Ofcourse the dissenting Justices hold contempt for the right embodied in the Second Amendment. But, they dare not say that. They cannot say thateven as inconsistencies in their positionillustrate that the rightcodified in the Second Amendment simply cannot, under their thesis, be vindicated.

It is a painful thing to seeand their contempt for the rightcodified in the Second Amendment lurks, like some hideous beast, just beneath the surface of their legal opinions.

Justice Stevens, in the first paragraph of his dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer, says, The question presented by this case is not whether theSecond Amendment protects a collective right or an individual right. Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right. District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. at 636; 128 S. Ct. at 2822; 171 L. Ed. 2d 684. Yet,Justice Stevenslays outthis oddgambit,proclaiming unconvincingly and, in fact, inconsistently, that, the individual right of the people to keep and bear armscan be vindicated, notwithstanding that the right is tied exclusivelyto ones connection with and service in a militia. But, is not the right of the people to keep and bear arms,then, as argued by Justice Stevens,a collective right, after all?If so, the rightcannot be an individual right. It is one or the other, not both; and it must be one or the other.But, thetwo are mutually exclusive.But, if the right of the people to keep and bear armsis a collective right, after all, then, how is the right everto be vindicated? We constantly get back to the same problem with the dissenting Justice's thesis. Justice Stevens' opening paragraph does not set forth a vehicle through which he might argue, soundly, that a right exists under the Second Amendment that can be vindicated. And, thepoint that he puts forth in the opening paragraph of his dissenting opinion, namely, that the distinction between individual rights and collective rights is not a critical question before the Court is false.

JusticeStevensattempts to conflate the concept of individual rights and collective rights, ostensibly to support the notion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms that he proclaims to be tied solely to one's connection with a militia, can be vindicated. He knows that collective rights cannot be vindicated. So, he posits thatthe readercan and shoulddispense with the individual right/collective right distinction in the context of the Second Amendment.He dismisses the importance of the distinction as irrelevant, when, in fact, it is critical to an understanding ofthe import and purport of the sacredright embodied in the Second Amendment. Still, heposits, up front, thatthe readercan and should dispense with the individual right/collective right distinction. We should not dispense with the individual right/collective right distinction, from the legal standpoint, because doing so is an affront to the framers' idea of the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a natural right, governed by natural lawthat the right is not, then, man-made, and, therefore, ought not be constrained by man-made laws. And, we cannot dispense with the individual right/collective right distinction from a logical standpoint, because doing so, in the context of the import of the right of the people to keep and bear arms would, then, be incoherent. Justice Stevens presents this assertion as an assumption to be accepted, as reasonable. It isn't. It is a proposition the truth of which must be proved. He does not prove it. Justice Stevens assertsit anyway, as a given, as a naked assumption, and then proceeds on his merry way with his argument that the right to be vindicated does exist; and that the right can existwithin the notion of connection with one's service in a militiaa collective right, after all,a collective rightthat does not and cannot exist legally, and,more importantly, a right that does not and cannot existlogically.JusticeStevensthereupon, negates, tacitly, at least,the truth of the assumption he makes, and his argument, existing as it does onthat single false assumption, collapses in, on itself. But, Justice Stevens continues with his faulty logic, undeterred. After surmising that the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be vindicated in the context of an individual's connection with a militia,Justice Stevenscontinues with thecrux of his thesis, namelythat the Second Amendment's dependent clause, that he refers to as a preamble, carries the force of the right. Justice Stevens argues that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is conditioned by,limited by the preamble.Justice Stevens claims thatthe preamble iscritical to an understanding of the meaning of theright established. He emphasizes the importance of the preamble to the Second Amendment when he should know that, in law, a preamble never carries, within it, a legally enforceable right at all.

Enforceable rights do not exist in thepreambles to contracts, laws, or even constitutions. Rights exists in the operative portions of contracts, laws, and constitutions. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not conditioned by the dependent, antecedent clause of the Second Amendment. The rightis contained solely in the independent, operativeclause of Second Amendment. And, in that operative clause of the Second Amendmentthere is no qualification or condition, limiting the extent of the right. Moreover,as an embodiment of a natural law, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be conditioned anyway.

Nonetheless Justice Stevens emphasizes the importance of the antecedent clause, the preamble. Heopines, The preamble to the Second Amendment makes three important points. It identifies the preservation of the militia as the Amendments purpose; it explains that the militia is necessary to the security of a free State; and it recognizes that the militia must be well regulated. In all three respects it is comparable to provisions in several State Declarations of Rights that were adopted roughly contemporaneouslywith the Declaration of Independence. District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. at 640-641; 128 S. Ct. at 2824-2825; 171 L. Ed. 2d 686-687.

Were Justice Stevens correctan opinion still held erroneously by many lower U.S. District Court judges and higher U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges as wella question arises whether there is anything left to the right of the people to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed. For, if the right of the people to keep and bear arms extends merely to ones service in a militia, does not that interpretationessentially destroy the right embodied in the Amendment? It does; and, in fact, that is the point Justice Scalia was getting at in Heller when taking Justice Stevens to task, and it is a point that Justice Stevens was never able to effectively counter, try as he did.

Justice Stevens was, apparently, astute enough to recognize the problem with his position. Its a problem that transcends legal considerations. It is one that rises to the level of a logical defect in his thesis. He therefore felt compelled to respond to it, albeit he did so in a footnote. But Justice Stevens response is confusing and ultimately logically unsatisfactory.

Attempting to circumvent Justice Scalias point, Justice Stevens asserted inhis typicalroundabout, fashion that, The Court assumesincorrectly, in my viewthat even when a state militia was not called into service, Congress would have had the power to exclude individuals from enlistment in that state militia. See ante, at 600, 171 L. Ed. 2d, at 662. That assumption is not supported by the text of the Militia Clauses of the original Constitution, which confer upon Congress the power to organiz[e], ar[m], and disciplin[e], the Militia, Art. I, 8, cl. 16, but not the power to say who will be members of a state militia. It is also flatly inconsistent with the Second Amendment. The States' power to create their own militias provides an easy answer to the Court's complaint that the right as I have described it is empty because it merely guarantees citizens' right to use a gun in an organization from which Congress has plenary authority to exclude them. Ante, at 600, 171 L. Ed. 2d, at 662. District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. at 655 fn 20; 128 S. Ct. at 2833 fn 20; 171 L. Ed. 2d 695 fn 20.

Justice Stevens argues in his dissenting opinion that Congress cannot exclude ones right to keep and bear arms. But, suppose a State should decide to exclude ones right to keep and bear arms. What then does that make of the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms and in what manner would a person be able to vindicate that right against ones own State? But, there is a more serious problem. For, even as to Congress, if one surmises that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is bound up in the notion of a militia, Congress may very well have plenary power to disband a State militia. In fact, it has done so, and has emphasized its power over a States militia even during the infancy of this Nation. That means the right of the people to keep and bear arms either exists within the context of a man-made constructa militiaand, if so,the right, then, does notexist and never existedat all, or the right exists, quite simply, independently of, and always did exist independently of, one's connection with a militia. The right must exist, then,in the individual.

A States militia, as an organized body of men simply no longer exists. Congress has seen to that. Congress itself has essentially destroyed the organized militia of every State through legislation in which a States National Guard is essentially a component of the United States Army, while the Air National Guard of a State is a component of the United States Air Force. Today, the states security personnel are not militiamen, but principally are the members of local law enforcementand the bulk of counterterrorism work will fall to them. The Security Constitution, 53 UCLA L. Rev. 29, 141-142 (October 2005), by Jason Mazzone, Professor of Law, Brooklyn University Law School.

Expanding upon the point, the author says, in a footnote, In thinking about modern translations and applications of the Constitution, one error must be avoided: equating the National Guard with the old militia. The National Guard claims to be the direct descendant of the militia. See National Guard Website, History, http://www.arng.army.mil/history (last visited July 27, 2004). In fact, the National Guard originated in the early twentieth century as a part of the national military. See Act of Jan. 21, 1903 (the Dick Act), ch. 196, 32 Stat. 775 (promoting the efficiency of the militia, and for other purposes and forming the Organized Militia as the State National Guard, in accordance with the organization of the Army, and with federal funds and army instructors); Act of June 3, 1916 (National Defense Act), ch. 134, 39 Stat. 166 (making the National Guard part of the Army). Moreover, the National Guard is nothing like the old militia. The cornerstone of the Constitution's militia was universal service (by adult white men), whereas the National Guard is an entirely voluntary corps. The militia originated as a local institution under the authority of the states, but the National Guard is, by law, part of the national military, run by, paid for, and mobilized by the national government. See Uviller & Merkel, supra note 425, at 142-43. Indeed, the militia . . . was designed and supported as an alternative to the professional standing army of the central government. The modern National Guard, then, is not just different from the militia referred to in the Constitution, it is in many ways, its antithesis. Id. at 153-54 (concluding that there is today no functionally equivalent entity of the old militia). The militia was not only separate from the national army, it was meant to outnumber and overpower it. (Recall Madison's claim about what a half million militiamen could do to twenty-five or thirty thousand regulars. See supra text accompanying note 177.) Today, though, more than 1.4 million troops belong to the regular United States military establishment the Army National Guard has about 360,000 members. Uviller & Merkel, supra note 425, at 143. The distinction between the old militia as an alternative to a standing army and the National Guard as the army itself is symbolized by a further difference: who takes care of the weapons. Militiamen kept their guns at home because they might need them at any moment to rise up in arms against oppression. Weapons for use by National Guardsmen are kept under lock and key in federal armories. Further, the only armed fighting Guardsmen do is at the direction of the government itself. See id. at 143-44. (Without pressing the point too far, police officers today keep and maintain their own weapons; it is also a fair assumption that to the average citizen, seeing a police officer, gun in holster, patrolling a street, is less startling than seeing a Guardsman in fatigues with an M16.) For all of these reasons, it is wrong to read the Constitution's militia provisions as referring today to the National Guard. At the same time, the federal government can, of course, deploy the National Guard as part of the national military for homeland security purposes. 53 UCLA L. Rev. 29, 141-142 fn 621 (October 2005), by Jason Mazzone, Professor of Law, Brooklyn University Law School.

To tie the right of the people to keep and bear arms into the notion of a militia or into the descendent of the militiathe National Guard, which is essentially a part of a standing armythe very thing the framers sought, in the codification of the right in the Second Amendmentto bea guard againstturns the rightinto a blasphemous,ludicrous caricature. Justice Stevens must have known of the disingenuousness of his remarks in Heller. One can forgive Justice Stevens intellectual fallibility. But one cannot forgive, nor should one forgive, blatant hypocrisy.

Eleven years prior to Heller, Justice Stevens wrote his dissenting opinion in Printz vs. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 117 S. Ct. 2365, 138 L. Ed. 2d 914(1997). This was a case where, as in Heller, not incidentally, Justices Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburgconcurred in Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion. Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion in Printz may be perceived as a precursor to his dissenting opinion in Heller, in which the Justice elaborates on his desire for a strong federal Government to thwart the excesses of the publicwhere excess means the existence of an armed citizenry. Justice Stevens' contempt for the Second Amendmenta contempt shared by the liberal wing of the Court that concurred in his opinionis on full display in Printz. Again, as in Heller, Justice Stevens' twists his words, arguing,in Printz, essentially that the Federal Government must require the individual States to clamp down on an armed citizenry. This according to Justice Stevens,in his usualtwisted logic, serves as a guard against tyranny. For, if the Federal Government should, on its own, simply create a vast bureaucracy to clamp down on an armed citizenry, that would certainly lead to tyranny. But, does there exist a difference?

In Printz, a case cited by the author of the aforementioned law review article, the U.S. Supreme Courtin an opinion penned by Justice Scalia, for the majorityinvalidated a portion of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that prohibits the Federal Government from commandeering State Executive Officials from enforcing Federal law. Justice Stevens and the other liberal wing contingent of the high Court took exception to that. Justice Stevens argued that Congress was well within its power to compel a State's assistance in fighting the epidemic of gun violencewhich, Stevens felt the Brady Act was enacted to combat.

With his proclivity to contort ideas through verbal legerdemain,Justice Stevensargued, in Printz, that tyranny is less likely to occur in our Nation when the Federal Government can and ought to compel the States to act in its behest than were the Federal Government simply to create vast national bureaucracies to implement its policies. Printz vs. United States, 521 U.S. at 959, 117 S. Ct. at 2396, 138 L. Ed. 2d at 959(1997).

Extrapolating from Printz, one might reasonably argue that Stevens makes a similar case in his dissenting opinion in Heller. Tyranny, for Stevens is less likely to occur when the Federal Government can compel the States to constrain possession of firearms in the citizenry than were the Federal Government to create a vast National bureaucracy to do the job itself. But, in terms of the result, this is truly a distinction without a difference. If the militia is identified with the National Guard and the National Guard is essentially an adjunct of the United State Army and if the individuals right to keep and bear arms is a function of ones connection with a State militia qua a States National Guard, wherein is the right to keep and bear arms, existent in the individual, to be vindicated? If the threat, as Justice Stevens sees it, as evidenced in his dissenting opinion in Printz, is found in the very existence of an armed citizenry as situated apart from that armed citizenrys connection with a States militia qua National Guard, as merely an adjunct of the Federal Governments standing army, then wherein is one to envision anything left of the Second Amendment as a right to be vindicated?

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel' website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: http://www.arbalestquarrel.com.

View original post here:
Militia Clause In The Second Amendment - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Rev. Tom Lovorn, Th.D.

Q. Does the Bible have anything to say about our Second Amendment rights, which were hearing so much about in the current political climate? Christine Stawarz, Prince George, Va.

A. The Second Amendment was drafted by James Madison in 1789. It and the other nine amendments, forming what we call the Bill of Rights, were ratified and added to our Constitution in 1791. They are understood to state the inherent rights of every citizen.

The Second Amendment 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. One of our statesmen said its intended purpose was to support the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

Although Isaiah 9:6 predicted the Messiah would be called the Prince of Peace, it is a reference to the heart-peace he gives to believers and to his future millennial reign when there will be peace in the valley (Isaiah 11:1-9). It is true that Jesus said in Matthew 5:39 his followers should turn the other cheek when we are smitten. But, we must not take that out of the context of love which Jesus was preaching. He was not talking about defending ourselves in a life-threatening situation; he was teaching that we should resist our natural reaction in order to help a fellowman learn the ideal response of love. Gods love in us should cause us to forgo our own concerns to seek the best for others.

True: Jesus taught that we should, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven (Matthew 5:44-45). However, Jesus never said we should not defend ourselves from danger. In fact, in Numbers 22:31 the Angel of the Lord, whom we suppose to be preincarnate Jesus, had his sword drawn against the false prophet Balaam.

In our present culture of lawlessness and greed, believers have permission from Jesus in Luke 22:36 to carry a sword. He also said in Luke 11:21 (CEV), When a strong man arms himself and guards his home, everything he owns is safe.

The Rev. Dr. Tom Lovorn is pastor of Gods Storehouse Baptist Church in Richmond and he writes a weekly question and answer column for The Progress-Index. Columns are real questions from readers around the world. Dr. Tom, a Petersburg resident, is a long-time columnist with The Progress-Index and a former pastor in the Petersburg community.Note: This column was originally published in The Progress-Index May 28, 2016. Dr. Lovorn requested a week off from his writing responsibilities, so we searched our archives for a column that was relevant and worthy of repeating.

Read more from the original source:
Second Amendment rights - Progress Index

One day in October 2010, a man by the name of Angel Mendez was at his home, asleep on a futon next to his pregnant girlfriend. Hed built the home himself, and it almost redefined the word modest. It was little more than a one-room shack in the back yard of another persons residence, with a blanket for a door. He awoke from his nap to see a person pulling back the blanket. He picked up his BB gun, and heard someone shout gun! before 15 rounds came flying at him. He was grievously injured, ultimately losing a leg. His unarmed girlfriend was also wounded.

It turns out the person who shot at Mendez was a police officer. Los Angeles County sheriffs deputies Christopher Conley and Jennifer Peterson were looking for a parolee who was believed to be armed and dangerous. They did not have a warrant to search Mendezs home, and they did not announce their presence or identity before accosting him. They entered, saw his BB gun, and started firing.

Lest you think this is a unique incident, in March I wrote about the terrible case of Andrew Scott. Like Mendez, Scott was an innocent man at home with his girlfriend when the police came. Like Mendez, he was mistaken by police for the armed and dangerous man they sought. They pounded on his door, but they didnt have a warrant, and they didnt announce themselves. Like any reasonable person, he was alarmed at the late-night disturbance and had no reason to expect the police were its source. So he grabbed his gun. When he opened his door, the police shot him dead in two seconds.

Neither Mendez nor Scott did anything wrong. They were both absolutely within their constitutional rights to pick up a weapon in response to the unidentified persons attempting to enter their homes. Yet Mendez, and Scotts heirs, have so far lost in court, unable to collect any meaningful compensation from the police officers who shot them precisely because they exercised those rights.

Scotts estate lost at the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the doctrine of qualified immunity protected the officers from having to pay any compensation to the innocent victims of their mistaken and wrongful use of force. Mendez lost yesterday in the Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously against a quirky Ninth Circuit use-of-force rule that allowed excessive-force claims where an officer intentionally or recklessly provokes a violent confrontation, if the provocation is an independent Fourth Amendment violation. In other words, if the officers violated Mendezs Fourth Amendment rights by unlawfully entering his home, they could be held liable for shooting Mendez even if the shooting itself might otherwise have been justified under existing law.

The Supreme Court found that the Ninth Circuits rule violated court precedent requiring lower courts to instead apply a totality of the circumstances approach to such cases, under which the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. The Supreme Court then remanded the case back to the lower courts, where the deck is already stacked against Mendez. The court of appeals, after all, already ruled that the officers had qualified immunity from Mendezs claim, and the trial court determined that Mendezs decision to pick up the BB gun was a superseding cause that limited the damages he could collect.

Its time for a different approach. Its time for Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to explicitly recognize and accommodate the Second Amendment. If the Second Amendment means anything at all, it means that I have a right to defend myself in my own home, where as Justice Scalia noted in District of Columbia v. Heller the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Moreover, the Second Amendment exists in large part to protect the private citizen from state tyranny. It is odd indeed, then, that current law largely grants officers of the state the right to kill me in my own home even if I do nothing wrong. Indeed, the very act of exercising my Second Amendment rights picking up a gun makes it less likely that I will prevail in court.

Theres an old saying that a person would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six. In times of peril, the thinking goes, its better to risk a jury than to risk your life. But under modern jurisprudence, when the police barge in youre likely to be carried by six and then judged wanting by one: Youll die in the face of overwhelming firepower, and your estates case will be tossed right out of court by a judge.

This presents the homeowner especially if he lives in a high-crime area where the need for a gun is most dire with an impossible situation. In the event of a home intrusion, he has to identify the intruder before he picks up his gun or risk being shot dead instantaneously. If the cops make a good-faith mistake, the burden is on the homeowner. If the cops act improperly, as they did in both Scott and Mendez, the burden is still on the homeowner. Heads, they win; tails you lose.

What is to be done about this? Civil-rights jurisprudence must recognize the central legal truths of Heller and empower the original meaning of the Constitution. Police use of force against an armed homeowner should be evaluated on Second Amendment grounds, not merely as an unreasonable search or seizure. Agents of the state should be held liable for violations of Second Amendment rights when they kill or injure someone solely because he or she exercised those rights. Shooting an innocent man in his own home because he grabs a gun when an unidentified person pounds on his door or barges through it isnt just an unreasonable search or seizure. Its a direct violation of his clearly established right to keep and bear arms.

Its not too much to ask police officers to obtain warrants and to knock and announce their presence in all but the most exigent circumstances. In both Scott and Mendez, there was no good reason for police not to identify themselves. Yet in both cases, a residents reasonable response to police failures undermined his efforts to hold them accountable for those failures in court. That is unacceptable. When a person enters my house unannounced, I should have the right to hold a gun in my hand. To argue otherwise is to eviscerate the Second Amendment.

READ MORE: A Federal Appeals Court Goes to War against the Second Amendment What Justice Gorsuch Might Mean for the Second Amendment Why Would Anyone Want a Firearm?

David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

See more here:
Angel Mendez Case Shows Flawed Second Amendment ... - National Review

One day in October 2010, a man by the name of Angel Mendez was at his home, asleep on a futon next to his pregnant girlfriend. Hed built the home himself, and it almost redefined the word modest. It was little more than a one-room shack in the back yard of another persons residence, with a blanket for a door. He awoke from his nap to see a person pulling back the blanket. He picked up his BB gun, and heard someone shout gun! before 15 rounds came flying at him. He was grievously injured, ultimately losing a leg. His unarmed girlfriend was also wounded.

It turns out the person who shot at Mendez was a police officer. Los Angeles County sheriffs deputies Christopher Conley and Jennifer Peterson were looking for a parolee who was believed to be armed and dangerous. They did not have a warrant to search Mendezs home, and they did not announce their presence or identity before accosting him. They entered, saw his BB gun, and started firing.

Lest you think this is a unique incident, in March I wrote about the terrible case of Andrew Scott. Like Mendez, Scott was an innocent man at home with his girlfriend when the police came. Like Mendez, he was mistaken by police for the armed and dangerous man they sought. They pounded on his door, but they didnt have a warrant, and they didnt announce themselves. Like any reasonable person, he was alarmed at the late-night disturbance and had no reason to expect the police were its source. So he grabbed his gun. When he opened his door, the police shot him dead in two seconds.

Neither Mendez nor Scott did anything wrong. They were both absolutely within their constitutional rights to pick up a weapon in response to the unidentified persons attempting to enter their homes. Yet Mendez, and Scotts heirs, have so far lost in court, unable to collect any meaningful compensation from the police officers who shot them precisely because they exercised those rights.

Scotts estate lost at the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the doctrine of qualified immunity protected the officers from having to pay any compensation to the innocent victims of their mistaken and wrongful use of force. Mendez lost yesterday in the Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously against a quirky Ninth Circuit use-of-force rule that allowed excessive-force claims where an officer intentionally or recklessly provokes a violent confrontation, if the provocation is an independent Fourth Amendment violation. In other words, if the officers violated Mendezs Fourth Amendment rights by unlawfully entering his home, they could be held liable for shooting Mendez even if the shooting itself might otherwise have been justified under existing law.

The Supreme Court found that the Ninth Circuits rule violated court precedent requiring lower courts to instead apply a totality of the circumstances approach to such cases, under which the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. The Supreme Court then remanded the case back to the lower courts, where the deck is already stacked against Mendez. The court of appeals, after all, already ruled that the officers had qualified immunity from Mendezs claim, and the trial court determined that Mendezs decision to pick up the BB gun was a superseding cause that limited the damages he could collect.

Its time for a different approach. Its time for Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to explicitly recognize and accommodate the Second Amendment. If the Second Amendment means anything at all, it means that I have a right to defend myself in my own home, where as Justice Scalia noted in District of Columbia v. Heller the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Moreover, the Second Amendment exists in large part to protect the private citizen from state tyranny. It is odd indeed, then, that current law largely grants officers of the state the right to kill me in my own home even if I do nothing wrong. Indeed, the very act of exercising my Second Amendment rights picking up a gun makes it less likely that I will prevail in court.

Theres an old saying that a person would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six. In times of peril, the thinking goes, its better to risk a jury than to risk your life. But under modern jurisprudence, when the police barge in youre likely to be carried by six and then judged wanting by one: Youll die in the face of overwhelming firepower, and your estates case will be tossed right out of court by a judge.

This presents the homeowner especially if he lives in a high-crime area where the need for a gun is most dire with an impossible situation. In the event of a home intrusion, he has to identify the intruder before he picks up his gun or risk being shot dead instantaneously. If the cops make a good-faith mistake, the burden is on the homeowner. If the cops act improperly, as they did in both Scott and Mendez, the burden is still on the homeowner. Heads, they win; tails you lose.

What is to be done about this? Civil-rights jurisprudence must recognize the central legal truths of Heller and empower the original meaning of the Constitution. Police use of force against an armed homeowner should be evaluated on Second Amendment grounds, not merely as an unreasonable search or seizure. Agents of the state should be held liable for violations of Second Amendment rights when they kill or injure someone solely because he or she exercised those rights. Shooting an innocent man in his own home because he grabs a gun when an unidentified person pounds on his door or barges through it isnt just an unreasonable search or seizure. Its a direct violation of his clearly established right to keep and bear arms.

Its not too much to ask police officers to obtain warrants and to knock and announce their presence in all but the most exigent circumstances. In both Scott and Mendez, there was no good reason for police not to identify themselves. Yet in both cases, a residents reasonable response to police failures undermined his efforts to hold them accountable for those failures in court. That is unacceptable. When a person enters my house unannounced, I should have the right to hold a gun in my hand. To argue otherwise is to eviscerate the Second Amendment.

READ MORE: A Federal Appeals Court Goes to War against the Second Amendment What Justice Gorsuch Might Mean for the Second Amendment Why Would Anyone Want a Firearm?

David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

Continued here:
A Sad Supreme Court Case Highlights the Need for Smarter Second Amendment Jurisprudence - National Review

"Shall Not Be Infringed"

Weapons change, but the man who uses them changes not at all.Gen. George S. Patton

It seems that a segment of the shooting population pines for the old times, and actually believes things were better way back when. Guns were in .30 cal and .45 ACP, the uniforms were pressed to a razors edge, and Mitsubishi was a thing only known for being shot out of the sky. Back when the ships were made of wood, and the men were made of iron. But the truth is, weapons evolve. And you either get with that evolution, or you go extinct. To borrow a quote from my favorite humor website Cracked.com, showing up to fight iron age enemies with bronze age weapons, you might as well have been carrying a breadstick. GUNS AMERICA

The prevailing thought on the gun control political left is that times have changed but technology has no reason to. That is, while a man had the right to defend himself using a single shot musket in 1791 against an attacker using a single shot musket, a man in 2017 using a five shot revolver has no right to defend himself against a perp with a 30 shot semiauto AR. Or a variant: the home owner with a 30-round AR has no right to use his repeating firearm against four attackers using a 10 shot semiauto pistol, a crowbar, a butcher knife, or a runaway truck. For the left, self-defense is unfair to begin with, and for all self-defense cases the left has a pat answer: The Founders Never Gave Americans the Right.

Justice Scalia did.

For the left. equality is everything. Self-defense by its nature discriminates against the attacker who may not be as well-armed. What they would prefer is for the perp to have the 30 shot AR, and for the home defender to have a replica single shot musket, or better yet, an Obamaphone with which they can call 911.

As you can see in the linked video, the victim has plenty of time to make the call. And wait for the police to show up. And too, that a single shot firearm would have sufficed.

As in all things, the left takes a logical point illogically to its logical conclusion: meaning that in the 18th century when the Bill of rights were composed, man used mostly muzzle-loading single shot muskets. When the founding Fathers wrote the constitution, the gun controller will posit, they never had in mind repeating firearms for use by civilians

David Deming - - Wednesday, April 12, 2017 Washington Times

For decades the federal judiciary has been trying to interpret the Second Amendment out of the Constitution. It is, as Sanford Levinson has termed it, an embarrassment to an elite class of legal scholars that finds firearms to be unusual and repulsive objects. Now the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has declared that the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle is not covered by the Second Amendment, despite that fact that is the most common rifle sold in the United States. This execrable decision is the latest outrage in a long series of disingenuous judicial contortions.

The courts have never come to terms with the fact that any intelligible reading of the Second Amendment requires an interpretation that acknowledges and reconciles its two clauses. The operative clause speaks of the right of the people, while the prefatory clause justifies the operative clause by professing that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

Prior to the Heller decision by the Supreme Court (2008), for 60 years or more the federal judiciary almost unanimously ruled that the Second Amendment did not guarantee an individual right. The militia mentioned in the prefatory clause was taken to be the National Guard. Thus, the right described in the operative clause was interpreted to be the right of states to maintain militia. This interpretation was never credible because it excised the Second Amendment from its contextual and historical underpinnings.

The Obama-appointed left-liberal circuit courts, their predecessors and leftist media had the nation convinced that the 2nd Amendment ratified in 1791 actually meant the National Guard established in 1903. You see, not only are the political left Time Travelers, being delusional with uncontrollable tyrannical tendencies to rewrite law, they also live in the fourth dimension where $8000 deductibles actually mean AFFORDABLE Health Care.

The factual argument is that all firearms were designed for the military or police at first and came into general use later (and here I except fully-automatic small arms and artillery for what should be obvious reasons). Everyone belonged to the militia - as all able-bodied Americans legally do today unless they are prohibited from membership by law.

The militia is defined as all able-bodied non-trans-gendered Americans who used to be able to pick up a 12 lb. musket in 1791, but have trouble picking up a 6 lb. AR today that can fire 30 times as many rounds as the musket. Military and civilian small arms have operated in the same fashion (select auto fire is the exception, and have not been available to the general public since the 1930s.)

David Derning:

What weapons are excluded? Those not in the common use by an individual citizen, such as poison gas or large artillery pieces. The phrase used in Heller, dangerous and unusual, is properly understood to refer to weapons of mass destruction.

For the record, there are over a half million fully automatic firearms in the hands of specially-licensed American citizens and collectors and they are never used in the commission of crimes.

THE REPEATING FIREARM EXISTED IN PRE-REVOLUTIONARY AMERICA

David Koppel of the Volokh Conspiracy, Washington TImes:

The first repeaters to be built in large quantities appear to be the 1646 Danish flintlocks that used a pair of tubular magazines, and could fire 30 shots without reloading. Like a modern lever-action rifle, the next shot was made ready by a simple two-step motion of the trigger guard. These guns were produced for the Danish and Dutch armies. Brown, at 106-7.

30 rounds, just like the modern AR-15 - exactly the kind of firearm the Founders had on mind when they referred to Shall Not Be Infringed.

David Kopell continues:

Gun-control advocates often argue that gun-control laws must be more restrictive than the original meaning of the Second Amendment would allow, because modern firearms are so different from the firearms of the late 18th century. This argument is based on ignorance of the history of firearms. It is true that in 1791 the most common firearms were handguns or long guns that had to be reloaded after every shot. But it is not true that repeating arms, which can fire multiple times without reloading, were unimagined in 1791. To the contrary, repeating arms long predate the 1606 founding of the first English colony in America.

Firearms technology and the original meaning of the Second Amendment

One of the men to credit for why repeating arms became much less expensive during the 19th century is James Madison, author of the Second Amendment

To function reliably, repeating firearms must have internal components that fit together very preciselymuch more precisely than is necessary for single-shot firearms. Before President Madison and Secretary Monroe started the manufacturing revolution, firearms were built one at a time by craftsmen.

THE REPEATING FIREARM IS EXACTLY WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHER HAD IN MIND

Koppel: What kind of repeating arms were available before 1815, when the Madison-Monroe mass production innovation program began? The state of the art was the Girandoni air rifle, invented around 1779 for Austrian army sharpshooters. Lewis and Clark would carry a Girandoni on their famous expedition, during the Jefferson administration. The Girandoni could shoot 21 or 22 bullets in .46 or .49 caliber without reloading. Ballistically equal to a firearm, a single shot from the Girandoni could penetrate a one-inch wood plank, or take an elk. (For more on the Girandoni, see my article The History of Firearms Magazines and Magazine Prohibitions, 88 Albany L. Rev. 849, 852-53 (2015).)

Liberals who neither know history, civics, understand law, or how to count, may be surprised to find that 1779, just like the existence of repeating firearms, came before 1791 when the Second Amendment was ratified. Conservatives dont find any of it surprising.

The first repeaters had been invented about three centuries before. The earliest-known model is a German breech-loading matchlock arquebus from around 1490-1530 with a 10-shot revolving cylinder. M.L. Brown, Firearms in Colonial America: The Impact on History and Technology, 1492-1792, 50 (1980). Henry VIII had a long gun that used a revolving cylinder (a revolver) for multiple shots. W.W. Greener, The Gun and Its Development, 81-82 (9th ed. 1910). A 16-round wheel lock dates from about 1580. Kopel, at 852.

Production of repeaters continued in the seventeenth century.

The only factor for repeating firearms not being common in the Revolutionary War was cost. They were prohibitively expensive to manufacture with any precision - and it was specifically precision that was required to manufacture firearms capable of self-reloading.

THE AR-15 - THE BARBIE DOLL FOR GUYS

Designed a half-century ago, the AR-15 was the later of many self-loading repeating firearms that came before and now are in common use for over a century. It is common and for that reason is validated by the Heller decision to be legal for all. It is popular because it is a universal, it is light and maneuverable, it is user friendly and fast, and it is a capable firearm free people demand for its varied purposes.

Andrew G, BenjaminAll Rights Reserved

David Kopel is Research Director, Independence Institute, Denver; Associate Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, D.C; and Adjunct professor, Denver University, Sturm College of Law. He is author of 17 books and 100 scholarly journal articles

Andrew G. Benjamin is a real estate and tax specialist, equities trader, a former economic advisor to New York city mayor Rudy Giuliani; serving on the transition teams Subcommittee on Taxation, Finance and the Budget. Benjamin also wrote extensively about intelligence, economic issues, the Mideast, terrorism, technology, high end audio and transnational politics.

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban. -- Follow these instructions on registering:

Follow this link:
SECOND AMENDMENT PRIMER Part II - Canada Free Press

We are over 100 days into the Trump administration, and there have been record numbers of gun sales as citizens are empowered by new leadership to embrace their Second Amendment rights. In April alone, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the system gun retailers use to verify if a potential buyer can legally buy a gun, ran a whopping 2,045,564 background checks, showing there is renewed support for a strong Second Amendment after 8 years of anti-gun policies. And at the U.S. Concealed Carry Association (USCCA) our membership numbers continue to rise because the right to self-defense is one of our most fundamental beliefs as Americans.

In December 2015, a Gallup poll showed that 16% of Americans put terrorism as the number one issue facing our country. Sure enough, homeland security was also one of the biggest issues at the forefront of the 2016 election. Americans are worried about protecting themselves and their families, and have decided to take full advantage of their Second Amendment rights.

Under the past administration, President Obamas solution to violence and terrorism in this country was to legislate policies to keep people from legally obtaining guns. Now, under an administration thats pro-Second Amendment, gun owners can finally stop feeling criminalized for wanting to defend themselves.

An NBC/Washington Post poll also from December 2015 shows more people believe that the best way to stop terrorism is to allow citizens to arm themselves, instead of stricter gun control laws. A majority of people surveyed were also against an assault weapons ban, showing that the liberal claims of the majority of the country is against assault weapons, are false. In the same poll, only 22% of respondents were confident in the governments ability to prevent a terrorist attack an unsettlingly low number. All of these numbers from a year and a half ago, when our country was so close to an election, all explain the recent uptick in gun sales.

Americans watch the news, and are aware of what is going on around the world. We see it almost daily. Terrorist attacks in Europe, in places that seemed perfectly safe until recently, and even acts of domestic terrorism here in the United States have citizens concerned about their safety. Not to mention the instances of everyday crimes, which interestingly enough, is usually higher in places that have stricter gun laws. Legal access to firearms make citizens and their communities safer, and a country of armed, responsible citizens is a deterrent to criminals everywhere.

Lone-wolf terrorist attacks are on the rise, and the police cant always get there fast enough to stop the attacker before they hurt or kill people. Many attackers are known to the FBI and law enforcement, but there is little the government can do to intervene if the attacker keeps a low enough profile. It is up to responsibly armed citizens to be the first line of defense when these situations arise. Whether they are protecting just themselves, their family, or a classroom full of schoolchildren, people can see a clear need to arm themselves and know how to respond in a life threatening situation.

Back when the framers of the Constitution spelled out our freedoms in writing, the gun lobby did not exist. They were under no pressure from any interest groups regarding guns, and with pure intentions, wrote that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. With a leader in the White House that embraces and respects the Second Amendment, the tide is quickly turning toward a society that embraces responsible gun ownership, and does not condemn people for want to protect themselves.

Tim Schmidt is the president and founder of the U.S. Concealed Carry Association, and may be contacted at [emailprotected].

More here:
More Americans Are Embracing Their Second Amendment Rights - The Daily Caller

Gun rights can be a touchy topic, especially considering Virginia Techs past. I would like to start off by saying that when I advocate for gun rights and against gun-free zones, I do not seek to neglect the horrific mass shootings that have taken place on college campuses and around the United States.

The people of the United States have the right to own a firearm under the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which states: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Many politicians, specifically politicians on the left, seem to believe that this amendment needs to be updated or interpreted differently. As former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once said, The Constitution is not a living organism, it's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say."

As citizens, we know how inefficient and unorganized our government can be, so why should we trust our politicians when they say that we will be safe, if not safer, without our own personal protection? Personally, I would rather be in control of my safety, especially if it comes down to a life or death situation.

One of the ways the left is trying to take away gun rights is by passing an assault rifle ban. Not too long ago, I did not see a problem with banning assault rifles, as I assumed it meant militaristic rifles that the everyday American has no logical use for. However, I later found out the term assault rifle can mean whatever a politician wants it to mean. Politicians, primarily on the left, are misleading the American people by using terms that have no concrete meaning.

Another way the left has tried to take away gun rights is by implementing gun-free zones. A gun-free zone is exactly what is sounds like; its a place where citizens are not legally allowed to carry guns. In a fairytale, perhaps this would be a great idea. No one carries a gun, no shootings and no robberies, right? Wrong. The people who commit gun violence are not law-abiding citizens. If you havent noticed, murder and assault are already illegal. The law does not act as a deterrent for any of the people who have committed or wish to commit such acts.

The only people who truly abide by gun-free zones are the people who respect the law and have no intent of using their gun to harm an innocent person. These zones unarm the good guys and have no impact on the bad guys, essentially making citizens in a gun-free zone sitting ducks. Many gun-free zones are advertised as such. By advertising that a place is a gun-free zone, one is in turn announcing that those inside are defenseless, and therefore an easy target. Edmund Burke once said, The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Politicians on the left are making it so that good men have no option but to do nothing.

The gun does not pull the trigger, just like a spoon doesnt make someone overweight. People make themselves overweight and people choose to pull the trigger.

Now that I have established that theres little logic behind creating extremely rigid gun laws, lets look at the lefts record of accomplishment, or in this case, the lack of such. Illinois is one of the top ten states with the strictest gun laws. Chicago, one of Illinois major cities, had 762 gun-related deaths in 2016 alone. This is the highest number of gun-related deaths the city has seen in 19 years. Detroit, the city with the second highest murder rate in the country, also has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. In 2016, Detroit had 302 homicides.

These two cities not only have some of the harshest gun laws in the nation, but they also have some of the highest murder rates in the United States. A list of a few countries and regimes that were or still are gun-free zones include Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and now the struggling socialist country of Venezuela. These draconian gun laws are ineffective and illogical as shown by their inability to keep those residing inside safe and secure.

Our government should be promoting gun ownership rather than placing powerless laws on them. A great example of more armed citizens decreasing crime is Switzerland. In Switzerland, every man who is a citizen serves in the Swiss national military and is obligated to keep their rifle and ammunition in his home. As of 2010, Switzerland only had 0.5 gun-related deaths for every 100,000 citizens. As a conservative, I am not supportive of the government mandating that every U.S. male in the military own a personal gun, however, I do think politicians and citizens on the left need to realize that by un-arming themselves and other citizens, they are in fact creating more victims to gun-related deaths.

Another flaw in the gun control debate is that leftists fail to recognize the personal responsibility of the shooter. The gun does not pull the trigger, just like a spoon doesnt make someone overweight. People make themselves overweight and people choose to pull the trigger. The shooter makes a cognitive decision to pull the trigger and harm another person. If a student misspells a word on a spelling test should the teacher ban pencils? Of course not, so why should our government ban guns when someone misuses one? They shouldnt; a gun, like a pencil, is a tool. Theres no logic nor facts supporting that banning guns will work or has worked. As Ronald Reagan once said, We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker.

Read more here:
Gun regulation: A shotty violation of Second Amendment rights - Virginia Tech Collegiate Times

Maryland Daily Record (subscription)

Shots fired during Gunpowder Falls hike raise Second Amendment questions Maryland Daily Record (subscription) Hugh Pocock was hiking in Gunpowder Falls State Park on Memorial Day with his two sons when they heard gunshots. It was loud, but the trio assumed it was someone doing target practice and were not too concerned. But as Pocock and his sons began ...

More:
Shots fired during Gunpowder Falls hike raise Second Amendment questions - Maryland Daily Record (subscription)