Category Archives: Second Amendment

By Steve Kurtz, Georeen Tanner | Fox News

The Second Amendment is only 27 words, but Americans have used millions of words arguing over what it means. It guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But which people, what arms, and under what circumstances?

Two milestone cases involving the Second Amendment that reached the Supreme Court are District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), declaring an individual has a right to own a firearm, and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), affirming the Second Amendment applies to state law.

Now, if the Supreme Court decides to hear it, there may be a third major case in a decade: Peruta v. California.

At issue is the right to keep and bear arms outside the home. The Heller case specifically applies to situations within the home. Those who have petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case are hoping the justices will see it as a logical extension of their earlier opinions.

Continued here:
Second Amendment Case Peruta vs. California May Be Heading to ... - Fox News

There is no question that last year's election represented a significant victory for supporters of the Second Amendment and a defeat for those who want to limit our constitutional freedoms. The American people maintained pro-gun majorities in both the House and the Senate, elected a new president who believes in our God-given right to bear arms, and paved the way to protecting our freedoms before the Supreme Court. We're reminded, however, that there are still some in this country who believe the Second Amendment is for sale.

Despite our victories, it is more important than ever for the gun rights community to stand together.

After spending tens of millions of dollars in the 2016 election, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently announced he is spending at least another $25 million in the 2018 election cycle. Bloomberg has said that this influx of cash will be spent to prop up anti-gun candidates and attack those who stand up for the Second Amendment. This liberal billionaire and his rich friends are clearly undeterred by the repudiation of their agenda by voters last year and will continue to fund the fight against our freedoms.

The good news is that Americans with concealed carry permits are among the most engaged of citizens, who put a premium on protecting themselves, their families, and their communities. This is a group of diligent citizens we as a country should be grateful for, not targeting for the erosion of their right to self-defense.

This is also demographic that has jumped through the bureaucratic hoops in order to comply with the laws of their state and obtain a permit to carry their personal firearm with them in public. Fortunately, lawmakers in Congress are moving to streamline concealed carry permit requirements at the federal level, and make national reciprocity a reality. Currently, there is a patchwork of reciprocity policies throughout the country, with some states recognizing certain out of state permits, in addition to their own, but it is inconsistent and causes unnecessary confusion for gun owners.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C., have introduced legislation that would allow concealed carry permits to be nationally recognized, giving gun owners the freedom to travel wherever they please without fear of being on the wrong side of the law. This legislation would allow anyone with a valid concealed carry permit to move freely from state to state without fear of being thrown into jail because their home state's permits aren't recognized elsewhere.

Yet, even though the 2018 elections are still far away Bloomberg and others who oppose the Second Amendment are determined to block these efforts and rollback our freedoms. Rights expressly written into the Constitution and granted by our Creator cannot be bought. There are approximately 14.5 million Americans who hold concealed carry permits, and they vote.

Spending $25 million to try to put anti-gun candidates into office is the same old political theater that everyday Americans are tired of watching. We have seen this show before, and voters will see this effort for what it truly is: efforts by the wealthy trying to make their personal opinion into public policy. At the U.S. Concealed Carry Association, we will continue to stand with all gun-rights supporters in opposing the efforts by Bloomberg and other anti-gun liberals and work together to protect our Constitutional freedoms.

Tim Schmidt (@TimUSCCA) is the president and founder of the U.S. Concealed Carry Association.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read ourguidelines on submissions here.

See the original post:
The Second Amendment is not for sale, Michael Bloomberg - Washington Examiner

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

The case,Thomas Pinner v. State,revolved around Pinners arrest after dropping a handgun while exiting a taxi outside a movie theater.The taxi driver claimed the sight of the gun made him fear he was going to be robbed.

The Indiana Supreme Courts (ISCs) opinion explains that Pinner is a black male who was with a black female. The opinion describes that officers Jason Palmer and George Stewart arrived at the movie theater to find Pinner sitting on a bench:

The officers approached the seated Pinner with Officer Palmer standing on one side and Officer Stewart was standing on the other side[.] Officer Palmer introduced himself and informed Pinner that they had received a call that someone of [his] description . . . has a handgun on him. Officer Palmer then asked Pinner if he possessed a weapon. Pinner paused for a few seconds during which he was kind of a little rocking back and forth [wringing] his hands. Although hesitant to answer, he denied having a weapon. Officer Palmer then instructed Pinner to stand up and keep his hands up where they could be seen; Pinner complied and Officer Palmer saw the butt of a gun in Pinners front pocket. Officer Palmer secured the weapon and detained Pinner for further investigation.

Pinner was subsequentlyarrested and charged with class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license enhanced to a level 5 felony due to a prior felony conviction. During trial, he sought to suppress the discovery of the gun by contending the search and seizure were conducted in violation of both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. A trial court denied Pinners petition, and an Appeals Court handed down a divided opinion.

The ISC observed:

At the time the officers approached, Pinner was seated alone on a bench with a wall behind him. Both officers were in full uniform and stood in front of himone flanked on either side. Although nervous, Pinner made no furtive or suspicious movements, nor did he reach for the weapon; and he made no attempt to flee. The officers introduced themselves, immediately stated that they were searching for a man with a handgun, and asked whether Pinner was in possession of such a weapon. When Pinner answered negatively, Officer Palmer directed him to stand up and keep his hands up high. Assuming for the sake of argument that on these facts Pinner was free to disregard the questions and walk away, the encounter quickly shifted from a supposed consensual encounter to an investigative stop. And such a stop is permissible if, based upon specific, articulable facts, the officer has reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot.

The court added, Assuming without deciding the tip from the taxicab driver was reliable, the threshold question is whether the mere allegation that Pinner possessed a handgunwithout moreis sufficient to establish that Pinner [wa]s, or [wa]s about to be, engaged in criminal activity.' The court then ruled that the mere possession of a handgun was not sufficientto establish that Pinner was engaged in criminal activity.

ISC issued a conclusion thatmakes clear that the privacy protections of the Fourth Amendment cover those exercising Second Amendment rights, too. The opinion said, We conclude the evidence [against Pinner] was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and thus the trial court erred in denying the Defendants motion to suppress. We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this cause for further proceedings.

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.

Read the original here:
Indiana Supreme Court: 2nd Amendment Rights Protected by 4th Amendment - Breitbart News

EAST HELENA The Republican candidate for Montanas empty U.S. House seat took the opportunity to again voice his support for the Second Amendment on Thursday while standing next to President Donald J. Trumps son, who emphasized his love for hunting and fishing on his second trip to the state in less than a month.

Greg Gianforte, a Bozeman technology entrepreneur who lost a bid for governor last fall in his first foray into Montana politics, spoke with Donald Trump Jr. at the Kleffner Ranch in East Helena, the first of rallies statewide in Butte, Sidney and Great Falls.

Are we going to have somebody whos going to defend our way of life against federal overreach and and work with President Trump or are we going to have someone who falls in lockstep with Nancy Pelosi? Gianforte asked a crowd of about 300.

Gianforte is facing Democrat Rob Quist, a musician from Creston, and Libertarian Mark Wicks, an Inverness rancher, in a special election May 25. Montanas lone U.S. House seat is empty after Trump appointed Ryan Zinke Secretary of the Interior.

Both Trump Jr. and Gianforte encouraged people to return their ballots, which went out at the start of the month. The election, which will be on a Thursday, could hinge on voter turnout. Turnout for special elections is typically low and Republicans are concerned about Democratic momentum sparked by frustration with Trumps election last November.

In January about 10,000 participated in the Womens March in Helena, many holding signs objecting to Trump. Quists events around the state have brought in large crowds, even in more rural and Republican areas.

Youd better be voting because the other side is voting, Trump Jr. said. Theyre going crazy, theyre raising money from the coasts. Stay vigilant, stay active, vote before May 25.

Montana's Republican Attorney General Tim Fox also spoke, as did Chris Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association.

Near the end of Trump Jr.'s speech, a protester interrupted to ask about the presidents returns. Trump has not released his tax returns, something that has historically been done by presidential candidates and because an issue both during and after the election.

The man, Mark Girdler from Helena, was quickly escorted out of the barn where the rally was held. It was unclear if he was removed by supporters or volunteers.

At the end of April, several hundred turned out for rallies with Trump Jr. in Kalispell, Hamilton, Billings and Bozeman. Quist's campaign has said former presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, who bested Clinton in the June primary, will visit the state on behalf of Quist, though a date has not been announced.

Diane Mercier and Tracie Olson, both of Helena, came to the event Thursday in East Helena even though theyd both already cast their ballots for Gianforte. Mercier said she voted for Gianforte because of his conservative and Christian views.

I like his family values. And also because he is a businessman and knows all about how to build a business and create jobs.

Mercier said she is a lifelong conservative, but both she and Olson said they vote more on the candidate and issues rather than along party lines.

I look at the people at the issues, Olson said.

Both women were frustrated with advertising on each side of the campaign, saying television spots have turned negative instead of focusing on issues.

I do not like how theyre trying to make themselves look better, Olson said.

Mercier said shed rather see them talk about the issues than if somebody did or didnt pay loans. Thats good to know, but I want to hear more about the issues. Montana media has run several stories about Quist's 16-year trail of debt and financial troubles.

Several at the event said they dont know where to look for to find news that is accurate. Mercier said she looks to conservative news outlets and media, while Olson said she does not trust those.

When asked if Gianfortes efforts this election to align himself with Trump have swayed their opinions, the women paused.

Donald Trump as a person, hes brash. I do not like him as a person that you see on TV, Mercier said. But I really feel strongly there needs to be a shakeup in Washington, D.C., and hes trying to do what needs to be done.

She said she Congress has stood in the way of what Trump is trying to do.

Marie Bomar, also of Helena, was more supportive of Trumps presidency so far.

Hes certainly shaken up the world.

Helena resident Del Lonnquist said he feels like the Washington press and Washington elite Democrats are Carterizing Trump, saying at the start of former president Jimmy Carter's term in the White House the Washington press corps tried to paint him as a peanut farmer from Georgia and the same is happening now.

He couldnt tell his story, Lonnquist said. Of course he didnt have Twitter.

Follow along here for live coverage. If you can't see the feed,click here.

Visit link:
2nd amendment, hunting and fishing highlight Trump Jr.'s visit to Montana - Billings Gazette

Bob Owens, a longtime Second Amendment advocate and editor of the website Bearing Arms, was found dead Monday in North Carolina. He was 46.

Leading with an item titled, We Are Diminished, Bearing Arms co-editor Jenn Jacques on Tuesday expressed deep regret and profound sorrow that Owens life came to a tragic end.

We did not make an announcement on Bearing Arms because it was more important to us to give the family a day to grieve than to break the story and get clicks, Jacques wrote, adding that Owens was a huge part of the 2A world, he was first and foremost a son, brother, husband, father, and friend.

Police in Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina which is about 30 minutes south of Raleigh found Robert Eugene Owens dead near an intersection stop sign with a gun nearby, the News & Observer reported.

TheBlaze confirmed the victim was Owens of Bearing Arms. Police are working to determine if Owens death was a suicide or the result of foul play, town spokeswoman Susan Weis told the paper.

On Sunday, Owens posted about his progress on a book he was writing: Three days left and 10,000 more words to finish The Deplorables Guide to Guns. I got this.

Owens last Facebook message was posted Monday:

Owens Bearing Arms bio reads:

A long-time shooting enthusiast, Bob began blogging as a North Carolina native in New York at the politics-focused Confederate Yankee in 2004. In 2007, he began writing about firearms, gun rights, and crime at Pajamas Media, and added gun and gear reviews for Shooting Illustrated in 2010.

Bob is a graduate of roughly 400 hours of professional firearms training classes, including square range and force-on force work with handguns and carbines. He is a past volunteer instructor with Project Appleseed. He most recently received his Vehicle Close Quarters Combat Instructor certification from Centrifuge Training.

Conservative commentator and fellow Second Amendment advocate Katie Pavlich penned a tribute to Owens in Townhall on Tuesday.

I didnt just work with Bob, Pavlich wrote. He wasnt simply a colleague who I spent time with here and there. He was my friend.

She continued, When I received the news of Bobs death Monday afternoon, I was in disbelief. Shortly after, complete sadness and grief took over. Then, devastation.

I will remember Bob for all of the smiles he put on my face and the laughter he brought to those around him. He was an incredible friend with the kindest of hearts, Pavlich said. He served as an important mentor to many and was an overwhelmingly positive influence in my life. I was blessed to know him and I will miss him dearly. Please keep his family in your prayers during this horribly difficult time.

A GoFundMe page has been set up for Owens wife and two daughters.

Heres a video interview Owens did with National Rifle Association TV on preserving the Second Amendment:

See the article here:
Bob Owens, longtime Second Amendment advocate, dies at 46 - TheBlaze.com

Seattle deputies carry rifles near the scene of a shooting in downtown Seattle, April 20, 2017. (AP/Elaine Thompson)

SEATTLE The Ninth Circuit seemed skeptical of Seattle police officers claims that a new use-of-force policy mandated by the Department of Justice violates their Second Amendment rights.

U.S. Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith told the officers attorney he didnt have much of an argument at a three-judge panel appellate hearing on Monday.

More than 100 officers sued to block the police reforms in 2014, saying the revised use-of-force policy unreasonably restricted them from defending themselves and violated their Second Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights.

The Seattle Police Department was placed under a consent decree in 2012 after an 11-month investigation by the DOJ found routine use of excessive force and civil rights violations. As part of the police departments settlement with the DOJ, it implemented new use-of-force policies that stress minimal reliance on physical force.

U.S. Chief District Judge Marsha Pechman dismissed the suit from the Western District of Washington in 2014, finding no case supports the officers novel theory that a police department policy outlining expectations for an officers use of force can burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment.

Pechman also said the officers grossly misconstrue Fourth Amendment law by claiming the use-of-force policy is a metaphorical seizure of their right to use force.

At Mondays hearing, the officers attorney, Athan Tramountanas, urged the panel to revive the case.

He said the new use-of-force policy is overly complicated and dangerously restrictive.

Tramountanas stuck with the argument that the new rule robs police of their Second Amendment right to self-defense.

You must abandon your reason, Tramountanas said in reference to the guidelines that now require officers to use de-escalation techniques before resorting to force.

The officers arent arguing for no policy, he said, just a policy thats reasonable.

They have to be able to defend themselves, he added.

City attorney Gregory Narver contended that the lower courts ruling was spot-on, and that this was not a Second Amendment case.

Hyperbole aside, this doesnt disarm the police, Narver said. He also argued the policy doesnt keep officers from defending themselves.

If the officers had real concerns about the use-of-force policy, they should have brought them before the federal judge overseeing the police reforms rather than asking an appellate panel to create a new fundamental constitutional right, Narver said.

The 126 officers, sergeants and detectives who filed the suit did so without union approval.

U.S. Circuit Judges Carlos Bea and U.S. District Judge William Hayes sitting by designation from the Southern District of California also sat on the panel.

Read the DOJ mandated use of force policy below:

http://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Use_of_Force_Policy.pdf

See the original post here:
Seattle Cops Sue Over Police Reforms, Claiming They Violate Officers' Second Amendment Rights - Mintpress News (blog)

A conservative columnist who was suspended by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch after a pro-NRA piece talked to Charles Payne this morning on FBN.

Stacy Washington was suspended Friday over her column "Guns and the Media," and then she quit her position.

The paper's editor explained that, Her active promotional activities and professional association with the National Rifle Association represented an unacceptable conflict of interest in her most recent column, which resulted in our suspension of her work."

Washington's column was a response to a local op-ed in which the writer suggested the NRA is a greater threat to America than ISIS.

"The linkage is not only rife with improper context; it is false on its face," Washington wrote.

Washington said this morning she does not have a "professional affiliation" with the NRA. She said her op-ed was not a defense of the NRA, but more about a left-leaning newspaper publishing the ISIS vs. NRA comparison.

"You were fighting for the First and Second Amendments on this one," Payne noted.

Washington, a veteran, said she has always been open about her ownership of guns as an NRA member.

"Nothing in the column can be impugned by the fact that I may or not be a member of the NRA," she said.

Watch the discussion above.

'Newsweek' Writer: I Hope GOP Sees Family Members Die After ObamaCare Repeal

'Who Appointed You to the Supreme Court?': Senator Grills Yates For Defying Trump Travel Ban

Krauthammer Slams 'Condescending' Obama: 'Good Riddance, Mr. President'

Read the original here:
Pro-Second Amendment Columnist Suspended Over Piece Defending Gun Owners - Fox News Insider

Trump says that the eight year assault on the Second Amendment is over. The NRA crowd cheers. Looking back at that eight-year assault, the only thing that happened was that Obama signed a bill that allowed guns to be carried into the national parks. The universal background check bill died in Congress. Handgun bans in Chicago and Washington D.C. were invalidated by the Supreme Court.

Gee, where was the assault? Obama was the biggest gun salesman in history. Every time he spoke, gun sales went up. We doubled the number of guns manufactured in eight years with Obamas fake assault on the Second Amendment. Reality doesnt matter in todays politics. Facts supported by data dont matter either.

Trump signed an executive order allowing people on Social Security disability for severe mental illness to buy guns. A verified mentally impaired guy who is too sick to work can now buy a gun.

Think of severely mentally ill people having concealed carry firearms. If they forget to take their meds, any one of us can be seen as a threat that needs shooting. Afterwards they can pry the bullets from your cold dead body.

Pete Scobby

Newport

Original post:
No assault on 2nd Amendment - The Spokesman-Review

SAF recently launched its Judicial Accountability Project, reminding American gun owners that "Black Robes Matter." There are more than 120 federal court vacancies that President Trump can fill. They are lifetime appointments and these judges will decide on issues including local, state and federal gun control laws.

"Like it or not," Gottlieb observed, "the Courts have the final say whether you have gun rights or not. I know this first hand. The Second Amendment Foundation's legal cases have accounted for about 80 percent of the case law that protects your individual right to keep and bear arms."

That is why SAF launched the Judicial Accountability Project. The Second Amendment community must be able to fully vet every individual being considered for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench, Gottlieb noted. He said several gun rights activists and pro-gun civil rights attorneys and legal scholars asked the foundation to "take the lead" on this effort.

"We cannot risk the Second Amendment by being lethargic and disinterested in those individuals who will have the authority and responsibility to judge the merits of gun rights cases brought to the courts," Gottlieb said.

One thing that impressed him was a New York Times report about how anti-gun "liberal groups expressed alarm" at Trump's nominees.

"The louder liberal anti-gunners complain about federal court nominees," he stated, "the better the odds that these nominees will bring the proper perspective about the Bill of Rights to the bench."

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/trumps-first-court-nominees-look-very-promising-says-saf-300453437.html

SOURCE Second Amendment Foundation

Home

Originally posted here:
Trump's First Court Nominees 'Look Very Promising,' Says SAF - PR Newswire (press release)

From todays Fisher v. Kealoha opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (and Judge Alex Kozinskis separate opinion, though he also joined the panel opinion) like many judicial opinions, it leaves much unresolved, but it flags an important question for the future: What sorts of procedures must the government offer for recovering Second Amendment rights that were lost as a result of a criminal conviction?

Kirk Fisher appeals the district courts adverse grant of summary judgment on the issue of whether section 134-7 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes constitutionally prohibits him from owning or possessing firearms because of his 1997 conviction for harassment [of his wife and daughter] in violation of section 711-1106 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes.

This appeal involves the interaction of three statutory provisions: (1) section 134-7(a) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, which prohibits a person from owning or possessing firearms if that person is prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law; (2) 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons convicted of any misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; and 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)(B)(ii), which provides that a person shall not be considered to have been convicted of [a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence] if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored.

We have previously determined that section 922(g)(9) burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment and upheld its constitutionality, facially and as-applied, under intermediate scrutiny. United States v. Chovan, 735 F.3d 1127, (9th Cir. 2013), considered, among other things, whether section 922(g)(9) could be constitutionally applied to a defendant based on a fifteen-year-old domestic violence misdemeanor conviction. We recognized that keeping firearms out of the hands of domestic abusers is an important government interest and noted the high rate of recidivism for domestic abusers and the number and likelihood of domestic violence deaths involving the use of a firearm.

We also rejected Chovans argument that section 922(g)(9) could not constitutionally apply to him because he had committed no further acts of domestic violence in the fifteen years following his conviction. Even assuming that Chovan had committed no such acts, we explained, Chovan had failed to adduce sufficient evidence:

(1) contradicting the governments evidence regarding the high rate of domestic violence recidivism; and (2) showing that a domestic abuser who has not re-offended after fifteen years is unlikely to do so again. Id. Thus, under intermediate scrutiny, the statute addressed a substantial governmental interest and was tailored sufficiently to satisfy intermediate scrutiny.

Fisher argue [that] his harassment conviction occurred many years ago, and he has not committed any other crimes since that time. This argument is not meaningfully distinguishable from the one that we rejected in Chovan, and we reject it here as well.

Fisher [also] argues that section 922(g)(9) is unconstitutional as applied to him because Hawaii law provides for only one of the four restoration mechanisms listed in section 921(a)(33)(B)(ii): gubernatorial pardon. [T]his second argument is not foreclosed by Chovan [Footnote: [I]n Chovan, we applied intermediate rather than strict judicial scrutiny in part because section 922(g)(9)s burden on Second Amendment rights was lightened by [the availability of mechanisms for restoration such as expungement or civil rights restoration]. Id. at 1138; see also id. at 1151 (Bea, J., concurring) (concluding that section 922(g)(9) was narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest in part because of the restoration mechanisms listed in section 921(a)(33)(B)(ii)).] [But] we decline to address it here.

Fisher concedes that he has not applied for a gubernatorial pardon for his 1997 conviction. Thus, Fisher has failed to avail himself of the one restoration mechanism that is available to him under Hawaii law, and he is in no position to argue that Hawaiis restoration mechanisms are constitutionally insufficient. See In re Coleman, 560 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2009) (Where a dispute hangs on future contingencies that may or may not occur, it may be too impermissibly speculative to present a justiciable controversy.).

Kozinski, circuit judge, ruminating:

A states procedure for restoring Second Amendment rights bears directly on the degree to which the state encumbers those rights. Thus, despite defendants and amicis furious protestations to the contrary, we must consider Hawaiis available restoration procedures. Our modern Second Amendment jurisprudence trains its sights on the degree to which the state burdens the right and whether that burden is tailored to the states goal. Whether a state has a procedure for restoring Second Amendment rights plainly affects both the weight of the burden and our measure of its tailoring.

Criminal punishment, of course, always involves the deprivation of rights, but such deprivations can still raise constitutional concerns. The extent of the deprivation matters. Most recently, for example, federal courts have looked skeptically at lifelong restrictions on sex offenders Internet access. While restrictions on each right have their own distinctive history and restrictions on the Second Amendment are no exception it is unsurprising that we might look askance at a states permanent restriction on a misdemeanants right to bear arms.

Hawaiis procedure for restoring Second Amendment rights is notably slender: The governor can pardon someone. But gubernatorial clemency is without constraint; as Blackstone put it, an executives mercy springs from a court of equity in his own breast.

This unbounded discretion sits in uneasy tension with how rights function. A right is a check on state power, a check that loses its force when it exists at the mercy of the state. Government whim is the last refuge of a precarious right. And while Fishers case gives us no occasion to seek better refuge, others will.

In other contexts, we dont let constitutional rights hinge on unbounded discretion; the Supreme Court has told us, for example, that [t]he First Amendment prohibits the vesting of such unbridled discretion in a government official. Despite what some may continue to hope, the Supreme Court seems unlikely to reconsider Heller. The time has come to treat the Second Amendment as a real constitutional right. Its here to stay.

Read the original here:
'The time has come to treat the Second Amendment as a real constitutional right' - Washington Post