Category Archives: Second Amendment

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

He suggests this has happened as a result of the contention that private gun ownership is the ultimate check against tyranny.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Hayes writes:

The Second Amendment, its most strenuous defenders like to tell us, is the ultimate check against tyranny.The argument is that an armed populace keeps oppression at bay, but its practical effect has been the opposite.If the people are always armed enough to threaten the states control, then the states monopoly on violence is forever in question and the state therefore acts more often than not as if it were putting down an insurrection as opposed to enforcing the law.

Note the assertion that an armed populace threatens the states monopoly on violence. Hayes misses the fact that this is exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted. The Founderswanted to ensure that the central government could not overreach and run roughshod over the citizenry.

See James Madisons Federalist 46, where it is evident that the advantage of being armed is one which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. Moreover, the purpose of the armsas described by Madisonis to enable the people to band together and repel a tyranny.

Madison wrote, Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.

He makes the same point in other ways in Federalist 46, but what is applicable here is that Hayes and others who criticize strenuous defenders who say the Second Amendment is the ultimate check against tyranny miss the fact that this contention was nurtured by Madison. For those who disagreewhether they were disagreeing in 1788 or now, in 2017Madison invites them to look at the lessons the British regular army learned when it tried to expand the Crowns power over armed colonists formed into militias.

Rather than deal with these realities of American history and the documents that so clearly state the Founders intentions, Hayes tries to undercut the benefit of an armed populace by suggesting that Saddam Hussein was able to hold power, although Iraq had one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world. Hayes does not mention that Iraq also had a dictatorship which only allowed the best guns to go those loyal to the dictator.

Slatereported this by summarizing the Washington Posts Anthony Shadid regarding Iraqs gun policy prior to the U.S. invasion of that country in 2003: [Iraqi] gun stores can sell only hunting rifles and pistols. But AK-47s, the weapon of choice, are provided to millions of members of the ruling Baath Party and allied militias such as the one known as Saddams Fedayeen.

The Chicago Tribunemade the same point shortly after U.S. forces toppled Saddam Husseins regime:

Under Husseins tough policies, most Iraqis did not have access to guns. His military, however, had a hodgepodge of weapons bought from Russia and the Eastern Bloc nations and taken in wars with Iran and Kuwait. Many were old and in miserable shape, but the Republican Guard received modern equipment.

After U.S. troops took control of Baghdad, looters and thieves grabbed tens of thousands of weapons from government arsenals, Americans estimate. Remnants of Husseins forces apparently collected the best guns and artillery hidden before the war.

Madisons point still stands. A well-armed populace at the outset is a hindrance to the formation of a dictatorship and a check on tyranny from within.

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.

Go here to read the rest:
Chris Hayes: 2nd Amendment Defenders Spurred 'Arms Race' Between Citizens and Cops - Breitbart News

It is odd that federal entities seem to find certain libertieslike the right to bear armsless inalienable than others. I will continue to guard the constitutional rights of all Americans against groups that would undermine them, and I look forward to seeing due process restored in the question of veterans Second Amendment rights.

WASHINGTONCongressman Doug Collins (R-Ga.) voted today to support H.R. 1181, TheVeterans Second Amendment Protection Act, to guard veterans right to bear arms and to due process under the law.

Currently, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) labels veterans as mentally defective if they receive assistance from an appointed fiduciary. In the VA system, attaching this label to a veteran sends his or her name to the FBIs National InstantCriminal Background Check System (NICS). Inclusion on the NICS list prohibits an individual from buying or possessing a gun. Under the VAs system, individuals can be added to the system without any judicial determination,meaning veterans are deprivedof their Second Amendment rights without due process.

As a military chaplain, I find it disheartening that the VA allows bureaucrats to make determinations about a veterans constitutional right under the pretext of mental health care. Under the Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act, a judicial determinationrather than a bureaucratic labelwould be necessary to report a veterans name to NICS, said Collins.

It is odd that federal entities seem to find certain libertieslike the right to bear armsless inalienable than others. I will continue to guard the constitutional rights of all Americans against groups that would undermine them, and I look forward to seeing due process restored in the question of veterans Second Amendment rights.

Collins also cosponsored a similar piece of legislation, H.J.Res. 40, a joint resolution of disapproval of the Social Security Administrationsimplementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, which effectively denied millions of Social Security recipients their Second and Fourth Amendment rights. President Trump signed this resolution into law last month.

Read the rest here:
Collins Supports Protecting Second Amendment Rights for Veterans - Fetchyournews.com

Washington Post

Trump: Second Amendment is 'very, very safe' Washington Post March 20, 2017 8:18 PM EDT - President Trump took a dig at former presidential rival Hillary Clinton, saying the Second Amendment would be in danger "if a certain other person won this election." (The Washington Post) ...

Read more from the original source:
Trump: Second Amendment is 'very, very safe' - Washington Post

Fire Weather Warningissued March 19 at 11:06AM MDT expiring March 19 at 7:00PM MDT in effect for: Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, Jefferson, Larimer, Logan, Morgan, Phillips, Sedgwick, Washington, Weld

Fire Weather Warningissued March 19 at 8:25AM MDT expiring March 19 at 7:00PM MDT in effect for: Kit Carson

Fire Weather Warningissued March 19 at 8:25AM MDT expiring March 19 at 7:00PM MDT in effect for: Yuma

Fire Weather Warningissued March 19 at 4:05AM MDT expiring March 19 at 8:00PM MDT in effect for: Fremont, Huerfano, Las Animas, Pueblo

Fire Weather Warningissued March 19 at 3:20AM MDT expiring March 19 at 7:00PM MDT in effect for: Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, Jefferson, Morgan, Washington, Weld

Fire Weather Warningissued March 19 at 3:20AM MDT expiring March 19 at 7:00PM MDT in effect for: Boulder, Larimer, Logan, Phillips, Sedgwick, Weld

Fire Weather Watchissued March 18 at 9:09PM MDT expiring March 19 at 7:00PM MDT in effect for: Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, Jefferson, Morgan, Washington, Weld

Fire Weather Watchissued March 18 at 12:41PM MDT expiring March 19 at 7:00PM MDT in effect for: Yuma

Fire Weather Watchissued March 18 at 2:59PM MDT expiring March 19 at 8:00PM MDT in effect for: Fremont, Huerfano, Las Animas, Pueblo

Link:
House passes Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act - The Denver Channel

Anytime this country takes even one step closer to its founding as a constitutional republic, its time to celebrate.

In 1973, under Richard Nixon the president who considered guns an abomination legislation was passed banning guns on the millions of acres of countryside under the watchful eye of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This means no one is allowed to carry a gun for protection on that land if theyre just camping or hiking. (This is true even though hunting is allowed on some of those acres!)

However, that may soon change thanks to a 2014 lawsuit, Nesbitt v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which challenged the anti-gun regulation. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill, a Clinton appointee, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in his decision:

[T]his complete ban goes beyond merely burdening Second Amendment rights but destroys those rights for law-abiding citizens carrying operable firearms for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

Of course, the equally anti-gun Obama administration appealed Winmills ruling. Just as the Court was about to consider it the Corps asked to be taken off the calendar. They are actually reconsidering theirpolicy, according to The Washington Post:

TheArmy Corps of Engineers is reconsidering the firearms policy challenged in this case, as well as plaintiffs requests for permission to carry firearms on Army Corps property. This reconsideration has the potential to fully resolve plaintiffs objections.

This is as it should be. The Second Amendment guarantees American citizens the right to protect their person and property at all times. Any regulation which denies that inalienable right, is in direct violation of our founding document. End of story.

H/T TruthRevolt

Go here to see the original:
American citizens may soon be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights even on federal land - Patheos (blog)

WASHINGTON -- Despite strong endorsements from some gun rights advocates, Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch has a slim appeals court record on the subject - a record that leaves his views a mystery on how far constitutional firearms rights extend.

The National Rifle Association notes favorably a 2012 case in which Gorsuch wrote for the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the Supreme Court has held the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly.

Taken with his conservative leanings, originalist views on interpreting the Constitution and comparisons to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, that leads many gun owners to believe Gorsuch would protect their interests.

He has an impressive record that demonstrates his support for the Second Amendment, Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRAs Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement endorsing the nominee.

However, Gorsuch has not ruled on major Second Amendment cases.

We dont know, for instance, if he believes people have a right to carry guns in public. We dont know what he thinks about restrictions on assault weapons or high-capacity magazines, said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.

Those are the big issues that are likely to come before the Supreme Court with regards to the Second Amendment, Winkler said. And on those issues Gorsuch is a Second Amendment mystery.

The case cited by the NRA involved a man who appealed his conviction of being a felon in possession of a gun, saying he didnt know he was considered a felon due to a misunderstanding over his deferred prosecution in a previous robbery case.

Although he had signed documents indicating he would be considered guilty of a felony, the state judge told him, among other things, If I accept your plea today, hopefully you will leave this courtroom not convicted of a felony and instead granted the privilege of a deferred judgment, which means you will be supervised by the Department of Probation for a period of two years.

Miguel Games-Perez was arrested less than a year later with a pistol that had an obliterated serial number.

Gorsuch was on a three-judge panel that found the government had only to prove that Games-Perez knew he had a gun, not that he knew he was prohibited from having one.

Gorsuch said the panel was bound by precedent.

Our duty to follow precedent sometimes requires us to make mistakes. Unfortunately, this is that sort of case, Gorsuch wrote.

Games-Perez later asked the full appeals court to hear the case, a request that was denied in a 6-4 decision. Gorsuch dissented, saying the full court could reconsider its precedent. He wrote that due to the repeated misstatements from the court itself, Mr. Games-Perez surely has a triable claim he didnt know his state court deferred judgment amounted to a felony conviction.

Some groups favoring more stringent gun laws refer to the same case when arguing that Gorsuch is unfit for the Supreme Court.

Judge Gorsuchs views are so outside the mainstream that he has gone out of his way to side with felons over public safety, Peter Ambler, executive director of Americans for Responsible Solutions, said in a statement opposing Gorsuchs nomination.

And not all gun rights advocates are enthusiastic to endorse Gorsuch - because of another case.

Larry Pratt, executive director emeritus of Gun Owners of America, said the case that gave him pause involved a police officer in New Mexico disarming Daniel Rodriguez, a convenience store employee who had a pistol tucked into his waistband. The man turned out to be a convicted felon, but Pratt said the officer had no way of knowing that at the time because the man wasnt accused of a crime and the officer didnt question him beforehand.

Gorsuch sided with the appeals panel to uphold the mans conviction.

Ultimately, Pratt said, Gorsuchs judicial philosophy and overall record helped earn an endorsement.

Were going to support him with this caveat of our concern because of the Rodriguez case. And part of its a practical matter that if Gorsuch were to be turned down, its not likely, politically, that the next one would be any better, Pratt said.

J. Adam Skaggs, litigation director for the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Americans for Responsible Solutions Foundation, said in a telephone interview that Gorsuch has a very thin paper trail, but the few cases where he has ruled on gun issues raise a lot of questions.

In a 2010 case, Skaggs said Gorsuch relied on procedural grounds in rejecting the appeal of a man charged with possessing a gun after being convicted of domestic violence rather than conceding the point that convicted domestic abusers dont enjoy the same Second Amendment rights as law abiding citizens.

Instead, he went out of his way to resolve the case on a complicated procedural ground, Skaggs said.

Still, Winkler, the law professor, said its difficult to know how Gorsuch would rule in the most important Second Amendment cases because his track record is so limited.

Hes only decided a few cases with Second Amendment overtones and none of them are the major decisions on the important issues of the day, Winkler said. Nothing in his path tells use what he understands the scope of the Second Amendment to be.

Excerpt from:
SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch's view of Second Amendment a mystery - CBS News

Fairfax, Va. The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) applauds the House of Representatives today for passing The Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act (H.R. 1181), a bill that protects the due process rights of veterans, in a 240-175 vote.

The constitutional rights of our veterans must be strongly protected, said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA. The House vote today is a step forward in ensuring our veterans rights are not infringed upon.

The VA has been effectively banning veterans who receive disability benefits and use a fiduciary to help manage those benefits from gun ownership. These individuals are being stripped of their Second Amendment rights by a bureaucratic rule that denies them due process.

There is no data indicating a correlation between needing help managing money and being a danger to oneself or others the criterion the government must meet before denying a person their Second Amendment rights.

If enacted into law, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act would ensure that going forward, veterans who use a fiduciary would not be stripped of their constitutional rights unless a judicial authority first finds they pose a danger to themselves or others. This ensures due process rights for all veterans.

Needing help managing your money does not make you a danger to society. The NRA is pleased with the House vote today and we look forward to the Senate taking action soon, concluded Cox.

The NRA thanks Speaker Paul Ryan, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy , Majority Whip Steve Scalise and Chairman Phil Roe for their leadership on this matter.

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. More than five million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services. Be sure to follow the NRA on Facebook at NRA on Facebook and Twitter @NRA.

Read the original:
House Passes Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act - NRA ILA

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Since San Bernardino, Sandy Hook, Columbine et al., the progressives, the media and their acolytes have beaten their chests calling for even stricter gun restrictions, although the most restrictive states and cities that have the highest crime. They insist that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals, but only to the National Guard, even though the modern Guard did not come into existence until the Dick Act of 1903. To them, the Supreme Court decisions in Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald v. Chicago affirming an individual right are mistaken, a conclusion reachable only by abjuring grammar and history.

To anyone who can diagram a sentence the Second Amendment is crystal-clear, not a Delphic pronouncement. The Founding Fathers, well versed in Latin grammar, knew exactly what they meant when they passed the Second Amendment. The meaning is in the main clause the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed a complete sentence. A well-regulated militia is, in Latin, an ablative absolute, it introduces the main idea. Would Second Amendment opponents be happier if it read, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state? The idea remains the same, but given the progressivist idea of a living Constitution, they would nullify the Second Amendment by asserting knowledge of the Bill of Rights superior to that of its author, James Madison.

Historian Leonard Levys Origins of the Bill of Rights reaffirmed an individual right. Wrote Levy: The right to bear arms is an individual right. if all it meant was the right to serve in the military [it] would never have reached constitutional status in the Bill of Rights. The very language of the amendment is evidence that the right is a personal one, for it is not subordinated to the militia clause. The state constitutions of the revolution and early national period also acknowledged an individual right.

The Founders classical education made them realistically fearful of government power. They knew well what had befallen the Roman Republic and that tyrannies were only possible when the people lacked the means to resist. The chaos and oppression of the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolutions short-circuiting of the Stuarts divine right ambitions were fixed in their minds as was the English Bill of Rights (1689) which, although limited to Protestants, secured an Englishmans right to arms. However, the roots go even further back, to the Trained Bandes, locals called up to defend the realm as Elizabeth I did when the Armada threatened England. Englishmen provided their own accouterments according to their station. Likewise, the chronic war with France in which for over a century frontier settlements were attacked, settlers massacred or carried off into Indian slavery meant colonists had to protect themselves.

New England towns either supplied weapons or, as had Plymouth in 1632, ordered freemen to arm themselves for defense against ever-present Indian dangers. When Queen Annes War (War of the Spanish Succession) broke out in 1702, New England militias were called to support the British assault on French Canada. Militiamen brought their own weapons; those who did not own a musket were issued one that they could keep when mustered out. The battles of Lexington and Concord at the start of the American Revolution could not have taken place without an armed citizenry. Who, then, was the militia? To George Mason, it consisted of the whole people. Under the Militia Act of 1792, every man between 18 and 54 who when so enrolled and notified shall within six months thereafter, provide himself with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack.

The lefts assertion that Americas creators couldnt foresee a firearm beyond a flintlock is the logical fallacy of presentism we know better today. Were the Dark Ages better than the Pax Romana because 900 A.D. came later than 300 A.D? Contrary to modernist fallacies, innovation, not stasis, was the characteristic of 18th century society. They might not have foreseen the M-16 but they knew the devastation of the massed firepower of .69 caliber Brown Bess and that weapons evolved. The matchlock was superseded by the wheelock, the wheelock by the flintlock, as the rifle was to supersede the musket. In 1770, British Army Major Patrick Ferguson had invented a breechloading flintlock rifle and effectively deployed his riflemen at Saratoga in 1777 (Fergusons rifle could have revolutionized warfare). By 1819, 19 years after the Constitutions ratification, the U.S. Army adopted the Hall breechloader.

What of the Second Amendment, then? It is most certainly individual, but more importantly, it does not grant a right; it affirms an existing one as surely as natural law recognizes every mans right to self-defense.

William Layer is a historian who covered Air Force presidential operations during the early years of the Reagan administration.

Go here to see the original:
The Second Amendment as an individual right - Washington Times

The General Assembly is considering a bill that would require gun owners who openly carry a weapon to produce their gun permit if asked by law enforcement. Changes to the proposed language in the bill are causing some contention among members of the Judiciary Committee, which held a public hearing on the legislation Wednesday.

The original language of House Bill 6200 stated that police could only request to see the permit if there was reasonable cause that a crime had been committed. The Judiciary Committees version of the bill removes that clause, meaning if a person carries a pistol or revolver in plain sight and a police officer asks for his or her permit, they would be obliged to comply, whether there is reasonable cause or not.

Several committee members were concerned by the removal of reasonable suspicion from the bill.

"This committee hears a lot of testimony on a lot of issues making sure that our citizens of all different types are not discriminated against," said Republican state Representative Christie Carpino, "and I have a real fear that if [House Bill] 6200 passes, we're gonna deal with that.

Connecticut Chief State's Attorney Kevin Kane testified that the draft language seems reasonable and legal.

"The problem is difficult situations that the police are confronted in. To resolve it, all they have to do is say 'May I see the permit?' And just the mere showing of the permit doesn't seem to be that intrusive," said Kane. "I think a fair balance is to require people to show [the open carry gun permit] if asked."

Other lawmakers on the committee worried that the proposal would make it easier for police to unfairly target minority gun owners. The bill is supported by the Connecticut Police Chief's Association, while Second Amendment groups like the Connecticut Citizens Defense League say it violates the constitution.

Go here to read the rest:
Police And Second Amendment Groups Debate Open Carry Bill - WNPR News

A quick thinking convenience store clerk in Ohio recently used his Second Amendment rights when a would-be armed robber pulled a weapon to rob him.

According to WTTE-TV, 27-year-old Emanuel Hamm walked into the M&M Food Mart in Darbydale, Ohio, Thursday night around 9:30 p.m. with plans to rob the store. But the quick thinking clerk, who wished to remain anonymous, derailed those plans.

He pulled a gun and said give me the money, the clerk told WTTE, recounting the events.

As soon as I saw the gun, I pulled mine and I shot him, the clerk explained. That was the first thing that came to my mind when I saw the gun. I thought of my kids. Somebody thought it was an easy target and it wasnt.

Surveillance footage caught the incident on tape. It shows Hamm walking into the store with one hand in his pocket. The video shows the clerk, suspicious of Hamm, put his hand on a gun in his back pocket. When Hamm finally draws his weapon, the clerk was able to draw first, shooting and injuring Hamm. Hamm is then seen scrambling for the door.

Store owner Aziz Khettab told WTTE that after his store was robbed three times last year, he decided to finally buy a gun so he and his clerks could protect the store, its customers and his source of income.

Hamm was able to get away, despite being shot in the hand. But after he appeared at a local hospital with a gunshot wound, which WTTE reports was not life-threatening, police arrested him and charged him with aggravated robbery.

Still, the store clerk told WTTE that he feels bad for injuring Hamm.

It was really tough, he told WTTE. Its not easy to shoot someone, especially with someone who never had to deal with guns.

I feel bad for him, but I didnt have a choice, the clerk explained.

Watch the surveillance footage below via WTTE:

See the original post here:
Quick thinking store clerk exercises Second Amendment rights when confronted by armed robber - TheBlaze.com