Category Archives: Second Amendment

As Ed Gardner rides in his car on the way to the shooting range, the local NPR station blares over the radio. Gardner says he's "in the closet" at the range, having to hide from his gun-owning peers one of the most guarded secrets of his identity: He's a liberal.

"We try to avoid emotional topics when people are armed," he said.

Gardner is the executive director of the Liberal Gun Club, which was founded in 2008. Since Donald Trump's election, membership has been booming. Most new members come by way of simply searching for an alternative to the monolithically conservative gun enthusiast forums across the internet.

New members have been coming in droves: Enrollments are up over 10%, and across social media, blog posts about the potential need for a "gun culture on the left" are shared by thousands of people.

The "snowflakes" are grabbing their guns. Those who see the Trump agenda as an existential threat to safety are starting to rethink their position on gun ownership, taking self-defense classes and joining groups like Liberal Gun Club or Pink Pistols, an LGBTQgun club. Waiting to receive these new gun owners are the Second Amendment leftists who have been advocating for a liberal gun culture for years, trying to convince fellow liberals that not only are many gun control measures a lost cause, but a divisive political tool that ignores the underlying causes of violence.

"Tyranny isn't the United States Army, necessarily," Gardner said in the car on the way to the range, having flipped off NPR to discuss the Liberal Gun Club with me. "Tyranny can be when a transgenderkid or adult in Compton is actually afraid for her life because some people don't like queer people."

For some, it wasn't Trump. Piper Smith got to work building a San Diego chapter of the Pink Pistols after the Pulse nightclub shootingin Orlando, Florida. Smith said they've brought over 360 active local members into the chapter, and held self-defense trainings for dozens of paying participants. The group is planning to be present at San Diego's upcoming pride festivities. For Smith, it's a nonpartisan issue it's about protecting LGBTQlives.

"There are plenty of places in California where LGBT people don't feel safe, and with good reason," Smith said. "The police will come and take a report, or they'll come and pick up your body. But I'd much rather have LGBT individuals standing up for themselves, not living in fear and not staying home because it's dark and they're scared."

"Tyranny can be when atransgenderkid or adult in Compton is actually afraid for her life because some people don't like queer people."

Liberal gun owners have been pleading with their lefty brethren for years. In op-eds, magazine stories,Facebookposts and closed-door conversations, they've begged their fellow liberals to understand that gun ownership is intertwined with their heritage, their families, their communities and their personal independence, that restricting access is more about scoring points in partisan politics than about solving the underlying causes of violence. Now, more people are starting to see logic in those arguments.

In Gardner's words: "You've got the chuckleheads like us on the sidelines saying, 'We told you so. Let us show you the way. Let me sing you the song of my people.'"

The Robinsons are typical liberal gun owners in that they belong to one particularly special slice of American Democrats: They grew up rural. Sara Robinson was raised in California on the Eastern Sierra, tumbleweed and cowboy country where you might find gun racks mounted on pickup trucks in the high school parking lot. Her husband, Evan, is from Eugene, Oregon, from a family of gun owners and hunters.

"Everyone had them, and it wasn't the big tribal totem it's become," Sara told me.

The Robinsons, like many gun owners, refer to guns as "tools" devicesyou'd use to deal with rattlesnakes, coyotes, varmints and feral animals that wander over from a neighbor's land to terrorize livestock. The two have spent months out on the road, camping in remote areas surrounded by Trump voters.

And coming out as a gun enthusiast early in a conversation with a right-winger is, well, disarming.

"The first thing conservatives try to do is put you in a liberal box of an educated white lady from the city," Sara said. "The first thing I have to do is pull that rug out from under them. So I drop that code, and that throws them. They don't know what to do with me after that. The gun is really a useful way to put them on notice that I'm not the liberal they think I am."

In 1977, the National Rifle Associationunderwent a radical transformationwhen hardline conservatives seized power in the group nearly overnight, clearing out moderates from leadership positions. Since then, guns have been used by both parties to win easy points with their bases, while creating a sharp political divide based less on core values and more on the stereotype of gun-clinging hillbillies, in the case of liberals, and conservatives' paranoia about liberal elites coming to take the guns.

The split in attitudesin attitudes of urban and rural gun owners mirrors an important theme of the 2016 election:the presumption that coastal elites know what policies best suit rural people's needs.

The rural conservatives the Robinsons meet on their travels see the world as a more dangerous place than their liberal counterparts. When Evan's local gun instructor teaches classes, he invokes the horror of a lurking crack addict, and the racially tinged rhetoric is lost on no one. Sara often hears stories about bar fights, robberies and confrontations that take place an hour's drive away from the closest sheriff's deputy. She once chalked up a lot of that talk up to paranoia. Now, she tends to believe them.

"Trump-land tends to be a rougher place than most liberals live in," Sara said. "Most of us are urban and fairly well educated, we live in denser areas, we're more open and less fearful, so the way we think about strangers is very different."

"The gun is really a useful way to put them on notice that I'm not the liberal they think I am."

The Robinsons said they can't deny there's plenty of rhetoric to fuel the myth that leftists want to come and take all of the guns away, and that the party line evokes a world without guns. Evan recalled Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) saying in 1995, "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in."

"It's an unthoughtful response that, at best, is designed to work on the base with no regard to the relative stupidity of it," Evan said. "The idea that [there could be] no guns in America is magical thinking. They're just not going to disappear, no matter what we do."

Being a liberal gun owner can often mean being a pariah in both worlds. Evan's been blacklisted from several online liberal groups for his position on gun ownership, and gun owners who vote blue can be seen as traitors to the cause of gun ownership in the enthusiast community.

Sara said, "You just learn to keep it quiet."

When I called Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor and author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, to ask him whether gun rights have been a losing political issue for Democrats, he responded, "You needed a Second Amendment leftist to tell you that?"

President Bill Clinton fought so hard for his 1994 ban on assault weapons that he is credited with helpingRepublicans take back Congress in the midterm elections that year. In 2004, the ban expired, having had no conclusive effect on gun violence.

"Many Democrats who have lost elections have cited gun control as an issue," Winkler said. "On the other hand, there's [the] core base that wants it. It's hard for the party to ignore important members of its base and coalition."

Many left-leaning gun owners support existing regulations, as well as accurate reporting for states for the sake of background checks and minimum safety standards for concealed carry permits.

"The idea that if we had no guns in America is magical thinking. They're just not going to disappear, no matter what we do."

But they have a deeper vision for addressing gun violence than reducing access: a hard look at its root causes. Abouttwo-thirds of gun deaths in the United States are suicides.An analysis from Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, a pro-gun-reform advocacy group, found that "more thanhalf of all women killed by intimate partners in the U.S. are killed with guns."The analysis also found that over half of all victims of gun homicides are black Americans.

Nearly every damning statistic that indicts guns also indicates a deeper cause.

"We should be looking at suicide prevention, health care, systemic poverty and racism, the war on drugs," Lara Smith, the president of the California chapter of the Liberal Gun Club, said in a phone interview. "These are the real problems, and when you focus on the guns you don't focus on the underlying issues."

The Guardianrecently mapped gun homicides down to the census tract level, reportedly for the first time in U.S. history. The analysis found that, regardless of the hype around isolated mass shooting incidents and famously dangerous inner cities, gun violence often correlates with pockets of extreme destitution. The authors described the violence as a "regressive tax that falls heaviest on neighborhoods already struggling with poverty, unemploymentand failing schools."

The Liberal Gun Club felt vindicated. Because of a ban on funding for research that could advance the cause of gun control at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention thanks to NRA lobbying very little data that can speak to the root causes of gun violence actually exist. Progressives of all stripes have been fighting to liftthat amendment for years:anti-gun liberals because they think the research will prove the need to remove guns from public life, and pro-gun liberals because they think the research will light the path for more sophisticated, effective solutions.

"For me, this underscores the need for deeper research," one person posted to the Liberal Gun Club'sFacebook page in the wake of the Guardian's story. "Fund the CDC to do it. Don't be afraid of it. Follow the data where it takes us."

One of the first things that comes up when talking to a gun owner is whether or not you've actually fired a gun a necessary litmus test for whether or not you get it. So when Liberal Gun Club honcho Ed Gardner and I arrived at the range, he put a whole series of weapons in my hands and walked me through how to fire each one.

"We should be looking at suicide prevention, health care, systemic poverty and racism, the war ondrugs. These are the real problems."

The one I was drawn to most was aSmith & Wesson M&P, loaded with powerful bullets called by their caliber: .40s. The M&P is compact and light. It sent empty shells ricocheting across the range, often smacking me sharply across the head. My nerves never died down: A .40-caliber handgun kicks hard and blows much larger holes than a more manageable rifle loaded with thinner .22s. It's blunt and concussive. Gardner later informed me it's one of the weapons of choicefor many American police officers.

Gardner, too, harped on the root causes of violence. He spoke eloquently about the overall project of Second Amendment leftists: to address violence at its root by drawing attention away from guns and toward mental health, poverty and inequality.

"Yes, guns are deadly," Gardner said when we sat down at an Irish pub after leaving the range, the smell of gun smoke and lead still in my nose. "Yes, guns are weapons. Should everyone have them? Probably not. But maybe instead of worrying about what people are using to kill each other, we ask why people are killing each other."

Excerpt from:
2nd Amendment snowflakes: In Trump's America, liberals are finally reaching for their guns - Mic

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

GOA suggests the choice of confirming or not confirming is so clear cut that it boils down to one thing: Do you support the Second Amendment?

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Gorsuch is President Trumps nominee to fill the vacancy left behind by Second Amendment bulwark Antonin Scalia. And Gorsuchs nomination proves Trump true to his promise to put forward a justice very much in the mold of Justice Scalia.

GOA executive director Erich Pratt said, Gun Owners of America is urging people to contact their Senators and ask for an aye vote for the Senate.

GOA executive director emeritus Larry Pratt said, [Gorsuch] supports the Second Amendment as it was written [and] as it was understood at the time. So were pretty comfortable getting Mr. Gorsuch on the court, that he is going to be pretty much in line of Antonin Scalia.

Larry also said, This is going to be a whole lot better an appointment that if Hillary Clinton had been making it, that is for sure.

Breitbart News reported that Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) questioned Gorsuch during the confirmation hearings and used that opportunity to try to discover even a chance that he would be open to more gun control. What she found was Gorsuch standing on the law and the precedent of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). Gorsuch said, Whatever is in Heller is the law and I follow the law.

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.

See the rest here:
Gun Owners of America-Vote on Gorsuch Comes Down to ... - Breitbart - Breitbart News

NewsBlaze (registration) (blog)

The Next Second Amendment Handgun Carry Case to Go Down in Flames NewsBlaze (registration) (blog) This is a sad second amendment handgun carry case, Young v. Hawaii. The saddest fact is nothing can be done at this late stage to salvage it, thanks to the lawyer who represented Mr. Young on appeal. Mr. Young represented himself in the district court.

See original here:
The Next Second Amendment Handgun Carry Case to Go Down in Flames - NewsBlaze (registration) (blog)

This is the Colt U.S. M1911 .45 ACP pistol Burgett carried throughout his combat experience with the 101st Airborne Division in Europe during World War II. Nickel-plated and acquired by his father, the pistol was mailed to Burgett in Aldbourne, England, the day before D-Day.

A man should have heroes. And I am proud to say I have come to know some of mine. With familiarity only comes deeper respect.

I lost a friend, hero and fellow NRA life member last week, Donald R. Burgett. His books, starting with Currahee!A Screaming Eagle at Normandy, told the story of the enlisted man in the American Airborne during World War II.

I have been fortunate to spend time with some of my heroes, and through American Rifleman have been able to help tell their stories.

At the NRA Annual Meetings in Pittsburgh I had breakfast with Don and his family, including his daughter Rene, as well as Dr. Sidney Clark Phillips Jr., and his lovely sister Katherine.

Then-NRA-Secretary Jim Land had asked if these two World War II veterans, who were honored guests at the Special Presentations we were running that weekend, would lead the Pledge of Allegiance at the NRA Meeting of members. Of course, they were honored.

Don Burgett, left, and Sid Phillips (not pictured) were presented with Taurus M1911s by the company's CEO Bob Morrison at the 2011 NRA Annual Meetings in Pittsburgh, where the two NRA Life members and World War II veterans were guests of American Rifleman. They led the Pledge of Allegiance at the Annual Meeting of Members.

I recall Don asking Sid, "How do you want to do this?" Sid responded, "I believe we should do the hand salute," to which Don replied, as he wiped his mouth with the hotel napkin, "Then that's what we'll do." And shortly thereafter, they did. As they walked across the stage, they were no longer men in the twilight of their lives, a Detroit factory worker and a genteel southern doctor, they were a swaggering Army paratrooper and a Guadalcanal Marine. Their backs were straighter, and age seemed to fall away from them. They graciously took the standing ovation given them by their fellow NRA members, and then Don, who had been a sergeant said, "Hand salute," and a 17-year-old Marine and a 19-year-old paratrooper, more than half a century after they swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, saluted the national colors and began, "I pledge allegiance... ."

Before heading to New Zealand and the South Pacific to fight the Japanese, Phillips trained stateside with a Springfield '03. Nearly 70 years later, Phillips was still proficient with the rifle on his backyard shooting range.

We lost Sid Phillips in 2015. And we have now lost Don Burgett. I sat down to write about Sid a half dozen times, but could not find words adequate enough to express the gratitude our nation owes such men. Our nation is poorer for their loss. They were but two men. Humble men. Amongst millions. They did their part and more. They did nothing less than save the world from unspeakable evil. We owe our freedom, our way of life, to Don and Sid, and all those who served with them. And we are losing them.

We did TV shows with both Don and Sid. As well as magazine articles. You may have missed them in the magazine, but they are online (see links below). I was fortunate enough to come to know them. But their stories and their words are things every American should know. Know what they did for your freedom. And remember them.

Men like Don Burgett and Sid Phillips safeguarded your freedom. Make their valor, their sacrifice, worth it.

I interviewed Don for American Rifleman TV, and we listened to a man who jumped into Normandy, who fought to keep Hell's Highway open, who fought from a frozen foxhole on the road between Bastogne and Foy, tell us his story. He talked about liberating a Nazi death camp, telling the very souls the Nazis sought to exterminate, that things were different now that "America is here." And when he talked about what the Second Amendment meant to him, I watched the eyes tear and voice break of one of the bravest men I've ever met. Watch the video. Men like Don Burgett and Sid Phillips safeguarded your freedom. Make their valor, their sacrifice, worth it. As Don told me, "It's my Second Amendment." And it's yours too. Because men like him were willing to fight for it.

Learn more about these great men here:Video:American Rifleman TV: Don Burgett, Part 1 Video:American Rifleman TV: Don Burgett, Part 2 Hotter Than The Hinges Of Hell's GatesDon Burgett Marine & RiflemanSidney C. Phillips, Jr.

Read the original here:
American Rifleman | The Keefe Report: "It's My Second Amendment" - American Rifleman (press release) (blog)

Imagine carrying a gun in Texas without a government-approved license.

Sound far-fetched? Impossible? It is not - and the unlicensed carrying of firearms is not all that unique.

An organization advocating restrictive gun laws appeared before the Texas Legislature Tuesday. The group opposes legislation that would allow for the carrying of handguns without a license and to related offenses and penalties. (This is from terminology of House Bill 375.)

According to the Texas chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, HB 375 and a similar bill are dangerous permitless carry bills that would dismantle Texas permitting system, allowing people to carry loaded handguns in public without a permit or safety training.

What these two bills would do would be similar to what already exists in a dozen states - the unlicensed carrying of guns. There is legislation in Wisconsin allowing concealed handguns to be legally carried without a license. North Dakota approved similar legislation last week.

So, in other words, the state of Texas is not exactly creating its own version of the Second Amendment - other states have or are considering similar legislation.

We are not yet ready to advocate for the so-called constitutional carry law in Texas - meaning the unlicensed carrying of firearms. Let the debate begin.

However, as lawmakers consider the legislation, keep in mind that Texas has had some form of a concealed carry handgun law since 1995 - and there has not been bloodshed in the streets, as many predicted. And other states already allow the unlicensed carry of firearms.

Other laws related to gun control currently in the Texas Legislature give us pause, such as laws that would penalize private businesses which do not allow firearms. It is preferable to allow private business owners to decide for themselves whether to allow the carry of firearms on their property rather than have government dictate what they must do. (This is what clearly-posted signs are for - to inform the public of whether firearms are permitted on the property of a private business.)

Lawmakers in Texas should take a look at how the unlicensed carry of guns is working in other states. Are there similarities with Texas as far as population? What about the rate of crime? Economic factors?

Proceed with this information and research before automatically assuming that Second Amendment is dangerous.

More here:
Editorial: Second Amendment is not 'dangerous' - Amarillo.com

Right now it's illegal for any cannabis consumer in America to own firearms under the Second Amendment. But a state senator in Nevada is trying to get a law passed that would defend the right of medical marijuana patients to bear arms in the state.

According to federal law, people aren't allowed to buy or possess firearms if they use marijuana medicinally or recreationally.

The Gun Control Act of 1968states, "It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person...is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act."

Since marijuanais listed as a Schedule I drug in the Controlled Substances Act,cannabis consumers can't legally bear arms.

But Nevada State Senator Kelvin Atkinson (D-North Las Vegas) hopes to change that by convincing his colleagues to pass Senate bill SB351, which isaimed at protecting the Second Amendment rights of medical marijuana patients. He introduced that bill to state legislators last week at the request of medical marijuana patients who reached out to him and asked for help.

"People have come to me and said, 'This isn't fair. Can you guys at least hear us out?' " he told local CBS-affiliate KTVN. "So, it's an opportunity to hear folks out and see where we need to go with it."

Atkinson argues that barring cannabis users from owning firearms is unjust since people who drink don't lose their Second Amendment rights.

"You look at everything else an individual can be on, including alcohol...and it's not an immediate disqualifier," he said. "I think it should be looked at and it shouldn't be an immediate disqualifier for individuals who are...taking it medically."

The senator added that the bill doesn't address recreational cannabis consumers because they aren't required by law to identify themselves. Medical marijuana patients have to apply for and carry a card authorizing their drug use. Recreational users don't face those requirements in the state that legalized adult use in 2016.

But even if the new law does pass, its value would be mostly symbolic since gun dealers would still have to abide by federal regulations. Before people in America can buy a gun, they have to fill out an ATF 4473 form, which specifically asks, "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

The form also clarifies that marijuana remains federally illegal even if the state an applicant resides in has legalized or decriminalized it.

Atkinson's bill can't overrule those guidelines, according to Jay Hawkins, Manager of Reno Guns & Range.

"That law doesn't change the guidelines that we're bound by, which is federal guidelines," Hawkins told KTVN. "All that law would change is the possession."

So a person could legally own a gun under the new Nevada law, but they couldn't buy a new one and they couldn't buy any ammo. So thanks to federal cannabis prohibition, their Second Amendment rights have been basically watered down to the freedom to own an expensive paperweight.

But that could change if Congress passes acannabis reform billintroduced to the House last month byRep. Thomas Garrett (R-Virginia). Rep. Garrett's bill would essentially repeal federal prohibition and allow individual states to determine the legality of marijuana.

h/t KTVN (Reno, Nevada)

Banner image: thelegislator.org(Nevada State Senator, Kelvin Atkinson)

Read more:
This Nevada Senator Is Trying To Protect Second Amendment Rights Of Cannabis Consumers - Civilized

The Right-to-Carry revolution continues to sweep across the country. With Gov. Doug Burgums signing of HB 1169 last week, North Dakota became the latest state to adopt a permitless/constitutional carry law. New Hampshire passed its own permitless carry law earlier this year, while other states like South Carolina are still considering similar legislation. (South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard vetoed a constitutional carry bill passed by the legislature earlier this month.) There are now more states that have constitutional carry laws than there are states with restrictive may-issue policies for carrying firearms. In other words, more state laws look like New Hampshires than New Jerseys, and thats a very good thing.

Judges have been considering the right to bear arms in courtrooms across the country, and a few of them have come up with some pretty extraordinary interpretations of the Second Amendment to justify restrictive gun control regimes. Many of them try to seize upon Antonin Scalias comment in Heller that not all gun control laws would be found to be unconstitutional as evidence that governments should have broad leeway in passing laws restricting the Second Amendment rights of their constituents. Others claim that as firearms have changed over the years, the meaning of the Second Amendment must have changed as well. Because the Founding Fathers never could have envisioned semi-automatic rifles, or multi-shot pistols, laws banning rifles and restricting the carrying of firearms are therefore fine and dandy. But few courts have considered what states around the country have actually been doing for the past few decades.More state laws look like New Hampshires than New Jerseys, and thats a very good thing.

In 1987, there were only nine states that were shall-issue in regards to concealed-carry licenses, and only Vermont expressly allowed carry without a permit. Twenty-four states authorized broad discretion in terms of who could carry, and 16 didnt allow any concealed carry at all. Just 30 years later, there are no states left with complete bans on carrying firearms. Twenty-nine states now have shall-issue laws, 13 now have permitless carry, and only eight (nine, if you include Washington, D.C.) still have the may-issue laws on the books. Constitutional carry isnt clustered in just one region of the country, either. In the northwest, Idaho adopted its permitless carry law in 2016; in the southeast, Mississippi did the same; while in the mid-Atlantic, West Virginia also adopted constitutional carry. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed constitutional carry into law in 2010, and Maine and New Hampshire recently joined Vermont in becoming permitless carry states. This is a broad movement, but good luck getting many judges on the 4th or 9th Circuits to notice.This is a broad movement, but good luck getting many judges on the 4th or 9th Circuits to notice.

Even if you view the Constitution as a living document, changing with the times without any need to actually amend it, its pretty clear that this country supports the individual right to keep and bear arms as much or more than we did at the time of the nations founding. Yes, there are a handful of states where anti-gun attitudes dominate legislatures and the public square, but the momentum is on the side of the Second Amendment. While dozens of states have adopted shall-issue or constitutional carry measures over the past three decades, not one state has reversed course. No state has instituted a ban on the carrying of firearms, or even switched from a shall-issue to a may-issue law. The country has been moving in one direction when it comes to the right to carry, and its in the direction of a full recognition of our Second Amendment rights.

Cam Edwards is the host of Cam & Co., which airs live 2-5 p.m. EST on NRATV and midnight EST on SiriusXM Patriot 125.He lives with his family on a small farm near Farmville, Va. Follow him on Twitter and Instagram @camedwards.

Originally posted here:
Continuing Down The Road To Second Amendment Freedom - America's 1st Freedom (press release) (blog)

Three state legislators will host a free seminar about concealed carry laws and Second Amendment rights in Bedford County next month.

State Reps. Carl Walker Metzgar and Jesse Topper and Sen. Wayne Langerholc Jr. will hold the seminar from 6 to 8 p.m. April 11 at the Shawnee Valley Volunteer Fire Co., 3885 Pitt St., Schellsburg.

In addition to the legislators, law enforcement officers will speak about gun laws. The featured speakers are Bedford County District Attorney Bill Higgins, Bedford County Sheriff Charwin Reichelderfer and state police Trooper Matthew Long.

Additional information will be available regarding permit application, arms storage and identification, Pennsylvanias Castle Doctrine law and more. The seminar will also include a question-and-answer session.

Seating is limited and registration is required. Those interested in attending should contact Metzgars office at 814-842-3362 or register online at a legislators website.

Visit link:
Seminar to focus on the Second Amendment - Daily American Online

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

The legislationHouse Bill 1169passed the House on February 21 by a vote of83-9. It passed the Senate on March 21 by a vote of 34-13.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

USNews reports that the permitless carry law allows law-abiding citizens 18 and over to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense as long as they have a valid ID and notify law enforcement of the weapon during instances such as a traffic stop.

According to the West Fargo Pioneer, upon signing the bill Governor Burgum said, North Dakota has a rich heritage of hunting and a culture of deep respect for firearm safety. As a hunter and gun owner myself, I strongly support gun rights for law-abiding citizens. House Bill 1169 allows citizens to exercise their Second Amendment right under the U.S. Constitution.

With Governor Burgums signature, North Dakota became the 2nd state to recognize permitless carry this year. On February 22 New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu (R) signed legislation abolishing a concealed carry permit requirement in that state.

The addition of New Hampshire and North Dakota brings the total number of permitless carry states to 14. The other 12 areAlaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Vermont, Wyoming, and West Virginia. Although a permit is still required in certain parts of Arkansas and Montana, the vast majority of both states99.4 percentallow concealed carry without a permit.

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.

See more here:
North Dakota: The 2nd Amendment Is Your Concealed Carry Permit - Breitbart News

The Second Amendment

Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.

Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.

The onset of war does not always allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War showed that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense. The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia.

This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.

Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.

The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Much has changed since 1791. The traditional militia fell into desuetude, and state-based militia organizations were eventually incorporated into the federal military structure. The nations military establishment has become enormously more powerful than eighteenth century armies. We still hear political rhetoric about federal tyranny, but most Americans do not fear the nations armed forces and virtually no one thinks that an armed populace could defeat those forces in battle. Furthermore, eighteenth century civilians routinely kept at home the very same weapons they would need if called to serve in the militia, while modern soldiers are equipped with weapons that differ significantly from those generally thought appropriate for civilian uses. Civilians no longer expect to use their household weapons for militia duty, although they still keep and bear arms to defend against common criminals (as well as for hunting and other forms of recreation).

The law has also changed. While states in the Founding era regulated gunsblacks were often prohibited from possessing firearms and militia weapons were frequently registered on government rollsgun laws today are more extensive and controversial. Another important legal development was the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Second Amendment originally applied only to the federal government, leaving the states to regulate weapons as they saw fit. Although there is substantial evidence that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to protect the right of individuals to keep and bear arms from infringement by the states, the Supreme Court rejected this interpretation in United States v. Cruikshank (1876).

Until recently, the judiciary treated the Second Amendment almost as a dead letter. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), however, the Supreme Court invalidated a federal law that forbade nearly all civilians from possessing handguns in the nations capital. A 54 majority ruled that the language and history of the Second Amendment showed that it protects a private right of individuals to have arms for their own defense, not a right of the states to maintain a militia.

The dissenters disagreed. They concluded that the Second Amendment protects a nominally individual right, though one that protects only the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. They also argued that even if the Second Amendment did protect an individual right to have arms for self-defense, it should be interpreted to allow the government to ban handguns in high-crime urban areas.

Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Court struck down a similar handgun ban at the state level, again by a 54 vote. Four Justices relied on judicial precedents under the Fourteenth Amendments Due Process Clause. Justice Thomas rejected those precedents in favor of reliance on the Privileges or Immunities Clause, but all five members of the majority concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment protects against state infringement of the same individual right that is protected from federal infringement by the Second Amendment.

Notwithstanding the lengthy opinions in Heller and McDonald, they technically ruled only that government may not ban the possession of handguns by civilians in their homes. Heller tentatively suggested a list of presumptively lawful regulations, including bans on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, bans on carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, laws restricting the commercial sale of arms, bans on the concealed carry of firearms, and bans on weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Many issues remain open, and the lower courts have disagreed with one another about some of them, including important questions involving restrictions on carrying weapons in public.

The right to keep and bear arms is a lot like the right to freedom of speech. In each case, the Constitution expressly protects a liberty that needs to be insulated from the ordinary political process.

Gun control is as much a part of the Second Amendment as the right to keep and bear arms. The text of the amendment, which refers to a well regulated Militia, suggests as much.

Not a Second Class Right: The Second Amendment Today by Nelson Lund

The right to keep and bear arms is a lot like the right to freedom of speech. In each case, the Constitution expressly protects a liberty that needs to be insulated from the ordinary political process. Neither right, however, is absolute. The First Amendment, for example, has never protected perjury, fraud, or countless other crimes that are committed through the use of speech. Similarly, no reasonable person could believe that violent criminals should have unrestricted access to guns, or that any individual should possess a nuclear weapon.

Inevitably, courts must draw lines, allowing government to carry out its duty to preserve an orderly society, without unduly infringing the legitimate interests of individuals in expressing their thoughts and protecting themselves from criminal violence. This is not a precise science or one that will ever be free from controversy.

One judicial approach, however, should be unequivocally rejected. During the nineteenth century, courts routinely refused to invalidate restrictions on free speech that struck the judges as reasonable. This meant that speech got virtually no judicial protection. Government suppression of speech can usually be thought to serve some reasonable purpose, such as reducing social discord or promoting healthy morals. Similarly, most gun control laws can be viewed as efforts to save lives and prevent crime, which are perfectly reasonable goals. If thats enough to justify infringements on individual liberty, neither constitutional guarantee means much of anything.

During the twentieth century, the Supreme Court finally started taking the First Amendment seriously. Today, individual freedom is generally protected unless the government can make a strong case that it has a real need to suppress speech or expressive conduct, and that its regulations are tailored to that need. The legal doctrines have become quite complex, and there is room for disagreement about many of the Courts specific decisions. Taken as a whole, however, this body of case law shows what the Court can do when it appreciates the value of an individual right enshrined in the Constitution.

The Second Amendment also raises issues about which reasonable people can disagree. But if the Supreme Court takes this provision of the Constitution as seriously as it now takes the First Amendment, which it should do, there will be some easy issues as well.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) is one example. The right of the people protected by the Second Amendment is an individual right, just like the right[s] of the people protected by the First and Fourth Amendments. The Constitution does not say that the Second Amendment protects a right of the states or a right of the militia, and nobody offered such an interpretation during the Founding era. Abundant historical evidence indicates that the Second Amendment was meant to leave citizens with the ability to defend themselves against unlawful violence. Such threats might come from usurpers of governmental power, but they might also come from criminals whom the government is unwilling or unable to control.

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) was also an easy case under the Courts precedents. Most other provisions of the Bill of Rights had already been applied to the states because they are deeply rooted in this Nations history and tradition. The right to keep and bear arms clearly meets this test.

The text of the Constitution expressly guarantees the right to bear arms, not just the right to keep them. The courts should invalidate regulations that prevent law-abiding citizens from carrying weapons in public, where the vast majority of violent crimes occur. First Amendment rights are not confined to the home, and neither are those protected by the Second Amendment.

Nor should the government be allowed to create burdensome bureaucratic obstacles designed to frustrate the exercise of Second Amendment rights. The courts are vigilant in preventing government from evading the First Amendment through regulations that indirectly abridge free speech rights by making them difficult to exercise. Courts should exercise the same vigilance in protecting Second Amendment rights.

Some other regulations that may appear innocuous should be struck down because they are little more than political stunts. Popular bans on so-called assault rifles, for example, define this class of guns in terms of cosmetic features, leaving functionally identical semi-automatic rifles to circulate freely. This is unconstitutional for the same reason that it would violate the First Amendment to ban words that have a French etymology, or to require that French fries be called freedom fries.

In most American states, including many with large urban population centers, responsible adults have easy access to ordinary firearms, and they are permitted to carry them in public. Experience has shown that these policies do not lead to increased levels of violence. Criminals pay no more attention to gun control regulations than they do to laws against murder, rape, and robbery. Armed citizens, however, prevent countless crimes and have saved many lives. Whats more, the most vulnerable peopleincluding women, the elderly, and those who live in high crime neighborhoodsare among the greatest beneficiaries of the Second Amendment. If the courts require the remaining jurisdictions to stop infringing on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, their citizens will be more free and probably safer as well.

The Reasonable Right to Bear Arms by Adam Winkler

Gun control is as much a part of the Second Amendment as the right to keep and bear arms. The text of the amendment, which refers to a well regulated Militia, suggests as much. As the Supreme Court correctly noted in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the militia of the founding era was the body of ordinary citizens capable of taking up arms to defend the nation. While the Founders sought to protect the citizenry from being disarmed entirely, they did not wish to prevent government from adopting reasonable regulations of guns and gun owners.

Although Americans today often think that gun control is a modern invention, the Founding era had laws regulating the armed citizenry. There were laws designed to ensure an effective militia, such as laws requiring armed citizens to appear at mandatory musters where their guns would be inspected. Governments also compiled registries of civilian-owned guns appropriate for militia service, sometimes conducting door-to-door surveys. The Founders had broad bans on gun possession by people deemed untrustworthy, including slaves and loyalists. The Founders even had laws requiring people to have guns appropriate for militia service.

The wide range of Founding-era laws suggests that the Founders understood gun rights quite differently from many people today. The right to keep and bear arms was not a libertarian license for anyone to have any kind of ordinary firearm, anywhere they wanted. Nor did the Second Amendment protect a right to revolt against a tyrannical government. The Second Amendment was about ensuring public safety, and nothing in its language was thought to prevent what would be seen today as quite burdensome forms of regulation.

The Founding-era laws indicate why the First Amendment is not a good analogy to the Second. While there have always been laws restricting perjury and fraud by the spoken word, such speech was not thought to be part of the freedom of speech. The Second Amendment, by contrast, unambiguously recognizes that the armed citizenry must be regulatedand regulated well. This language most closely aligns with the Fourth Amendment, which protects a right to privacy but also recognizes the authority of the government to conduct reasonable searches and seizures.

The principle that reasonable regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment has been affirmed throughout American history. Ever since the first cases challenging gun controls for violating the Second Amendment or similar provisions in state constitutions, courts have repeatedly held that reasonable gun lawsthose that dont completely deny access to guns by law-abiding peopleare constitutionally permissible. For 150 years, this was the settled law of the landuntil Heller.

Heller, however, rejected the principle of reasonableness only in name, not in practice. The decision insisted that many types of gun control laws are presumptively lawful, including bans on possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, bans on concealed carry, bans on dangerous and unusual weapons, restrictions on guns in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and commercial sale restrictions. Nearly all gun control laws today fit within these exceptions. Importantly, these exceptions for modern-day gun laws unheard of in the Founding era also show that lawmakers are not limited to the types of gun control in place at the time of the Second Amendments ratification.

In the years since Heller, the federal courts have upheld the overwhelming majority of gun control laws challenged under the Second Amendment. Bans on assault weapons have been consistently upheld, as have restrictions on gun magazines that hold more than a minimum number of rounds of ammunition. Bans on guns in national parks, post offices, bars, and college campuses also survived. These decisions make clear that lawmakers have wide leeway to restrict guns to promote public safety so long as the basic right of law-abiding people to have a gun for self-defense is preserved.

Perhaps the biggest open question after Heller is whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry guns in public. While every state allows public carry, some states restrict that right to people who can show a special reason to have a gun on the street. To the extent these laws give local law enforcement unfettered discretion over who can carry, they are problematic. At the same time, however, many constitutional rights are far more limited in public than in the home. Parades can be required to have a permit, the police have broader powers to search pedestrians and motorists than private homes, and sexual intimacy in public places can be completely prohibited.

The Supreme Court may yet decide that more stringent limits on gun control are required under the Second Amendment. Such a decision, however, would be contrary to the text, history, and tradition of the right to keep and bear arms.

Original post:
Second Amendment - constitutioncenter.org