Category Archives: Second Amendment

DENVER The Republican-controlled state Senate on Thursday hosted another debate about expanding Second Amendment rights.

Previous debates focused on magazine capacity and training of school employees to carry firearms.

Thursdays discussion concerned Senate Bill 6, which would amend the concealed carry law to include a provision allowing active-duty and honorably discharged military personnel younger than 21 to apply for permits. The bill was adopted and scheduled for a final reading before moving to the House.

Bill sponsor Sen. John Cooke, R-Greeley, said the measure was inspired by his step-daughter who serves in the military.

Half her unit was deployed in Afghanistan. They can go to Iraq or can go to Afghanistan and defend themselves, but they cannot come back here to the state of Colorado, because they are under the age of 21, to get a conceal carry permit, Cooke said.

Sen. Daniel Kagan, D-Cherry Hills Village, said he was concerned about increasing the number of guns on the streets and the impulse control of adults under 21, even if they were military personnel.

When deployed, these military personnel are allowed to carry guns, but they are closely supervised by superior officers, Kagan said. There are very strict rules about when, where and how they carry those firearms and when, where and how they use them.

Sen. Vicki Marble, R-Fort Collins, said this is based upon the assumption that the young adults who had served in the military were the same as those who had not.

These 18- to 20-year-olds are incredible young people who have been through a great deal of stress, a great deal of hardship, a great deal of loss, she said. They have seen things we will never see, and what really gets under my skin is that we seem to lump them in with everyone else. They are not everyone else.

The bill represents the sixth piece of legislation focusing on gun laws this session.

Four of these bills have originated in the Republican-held Senate, were passed by committees to the full floor and are expected to go to the House, which the Democrats control.

The other two originated in the House, but both died in the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee, the so called kill committee.

This committee is the likely landing spot for Second Amendment bills passed by the Senate.

lperkins@durangoherald.com

See the original post:
Colorado Senate debates Second Amendment bill - The Durango Herald

Harrisburg Daily Register

Mark L. Hopkins: Why did the US Constitution need the Second Amendment? Harrisburg Daily Register This preoccupation with the Second Amendment began a few months back when I wrote a column entitled Guns don't kill people. Really? The amount of interest in that topic directed me to do additional research on the subject and every avenue pointed ... Revise Second AmendmentYakima Herald-Republic all 5 news articles »

Follow this link:
Mark L. Hopkins: Why did the US Constitution need the Second Amendment? - Harrisburg Daily Register

WEDNESDAY, FEB. 15, 2017, 1:16 P.M.

From the office of U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo:

Idaho Senator Mike Crapo today voted to support a Resolution of Disapproval that will stop a rule issued by the Social Security Administration (SSA) from stripping the Second Amendment rights of some Social Security beneficiaries.

Todays resolution of disapproval will stop the Social Security Administration from stigmatizing people with disabilities and stripping beneficiaries of their Second Amendment rights, said Crapo, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Social Security Administration is not a court of law and it is unacceptable that it take any action against a beneficiary without due process. Congress has done the right thing to stop this overreach and repeal this rule.

Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress may submit a joint resolution of disapproval to overturn a final rule issued by an Executive Branch agency. The resolution approved today will halt a rule submitted by SSA in December 2016. The rule requires SSA to report individuals who have been adjudicated as mentally defective to the National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS). Under the rule, individuals who have been appointed a representative payee may also be submitted to NICS. In some cases, the SSA may appoint, or a beneficiary may request, a representative payee to assist a beneficiary with managing their benefits. The wide-ranging rule will affect many Americans as more than eight million beneficiaries need help managing their benefits, according to SSA. Earlier this year, Senator Crapo introduced a bill to effectively overturn the rule and highlighted it in an op-ed this month. The Resolution passed today by the Senate will enact the changes Senator Crapo sought to address with his legislation.

The measure now goes to President Trump who is expected to sign the measure.

Agree/disagree with this resolution?

Posted Feb. 15, 2017, 1:16 p.m.

Read this article:
Crapo backs 2nd Amendment action | The Spokesman-Review - The Spokesman-Review (blog)

Mark Hopkins | Special to the Daily News

Why did we need a militia/gun amendment added to the Constitution?

As is true with most momentous decisions in the life of our country, to fully understand why something was done, we must study the times in which such decisions were made.

The why of the Second Amendment in the 1780s is very different from answering that same question in 2017. The United States was a very different country in the years following the Revolution than it is today. When President Washington first took office, two key challenges faced him and the leadership in Congress.

First, the Revolutionary War had concluded just eight years before. England had been defeated on our shores and withdrew their troops. However, that didnt make us the strongest nation on the globe. England still had the strongest combination of army and navy. They still controlled Canada, just a short trip up the Hudson River from New York City. In short, they were still a threat to us.

At the conclusion of the war, General Washington and the leadership in Congress did not have the money to support a standing army. It was the consensus that the U.S. must make do with smaller, live-at-home militia units in the various states rather than a centralized army. Thus, it was their hope that the new country could be protected with a citizen army that was armed and ready to be called up at a moments notice. To make that work, each military age male needed to be armed and ready if needed.

Second, several citizen rebellions had occurred between the end of the war and the time of the passage of the new Constitution. Principal among these were the Shays Rebellion in Massachusetts and the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania. Without the creation of a local militia, neither state had the firepower to protect the government or the people.

In short, our young country did not have the money to support a standing army so adding the Second Amendment was for the expressed purpose of making sure that each state had the legal right to call men to arms. Just as important, it was necessary that those men were able to join the militia fully armed and ready to defend their state and their government.

The contention from some that the framers of the Constitution adopted the Second Amendment because they wanted an armed population that could take down the U.S. government should it become tyrannical just has no credence in history.

In past columns about the Second Amendment, we have established the historical context of the creation of the Second Amendment. The primary purpose was to create a legal foundation for a state militia, the forerunner of our National Guard. President Washington not only wrote letters to support such action but actually created his own militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania. Congress supported his action by creating The Militia Act, that allowed states to call up militia units to protect the government and the people as needed.

Resources used for these columns on the Second Amendment came from His Excellency: George Washington by Joseph Ellis (2004), James Madisons arguments for a strong federal government in The Federalist Papers, (1777-78) and The Readers Companion to American History by John A. Garraty and Eric Foner, which tells the stories of Shays Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion.

If a reader missed the two earlier columns, contact me at presnet@presnet.net for copies.

Dr. Mark L. Hopkins writes for More Content Now and Scripps Newspapers.

Follow this link:
MARK HOPKINS: Why did the Constitution need the Second ... - Apalachicola Times

ROANOKE, Va. (WSET) -- A group of Roanoke residents gathered with guns in hand Saturday for Virginia's 11th annual Pro-Second Amendment Rally.

The group rallied in support of individual gun rights.

Second Amendment supporters say guns are harmless, but it's people who make them dangerous.

"Not one shot has been fired, no one's been hurt, no injuries, and we're just here to remind people that it's your right to carry," said Daniel Highberger, who helped organize the rally. "It's your right to protect yourself, and to the gun-grabbers out there in the world, explain to us why no one's gotten hurt on this corner."

Challice Finicum say her father's death is all the more reason to support the right to bear arms. LaVoy Finicum was a spokesperson for Citizens for Constitutional Freedom. He was shot and killed by state troopers at an Oregon wildlife refuge over a government land dispute.

"The video is on YouTube, you can watch him get out of his truck with his hands in the air, and they shoot him in the back three times," said Finicum.

Federal officials say he was reaching for a gun. His death made national headlines.

Those calling for more gun regulations say the protesters are not taking everything into account.

"I wish that they would exercise their listening abilities to hear about the real-life cases where children have been shot," explained Freeda Cathcart, a member of the General Federation of Women's Clubs. "And also parents who have been shot by their children."

Cathcart also referenced drug and alcohol addicts and mentally ill people who carry guns.

Both sides agree all guns should be used by responsible owners.

The City of Roanoke recently introduced a bill banning the open carrying of long guns within city limits. The bill did not pass in the General Assembly.

**Editor's Note**

Video version states Freeda Cathcart as a member of the General Federation of Women's Clubs Virginia. Webscript has been updated to reflect proper title: General Federation of Women's Clubs.

Read more:
Second Amendment supporters rally in Roanoke | WSET - WSET

AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

What Jeff Sessions Confirmation Means For The 2nd Amendment ~ VIDEO AmmoLand Shooting Sports News USA -(Ammoland.com)- With the recent confirmation of Jeff Sessions to Attorney General, gun owners and pro second amendment supporters could be heard breathing an audible sigh of relief. The 52-47 vote confirmed the Senator from Alabama as The ... and more »

See the original post:
What Jeff Sessions Confirmation Means For The 2nd Amendment ~ VIDEO - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Since August of 2015, Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, has takena stance against the Social Security Administrations action to provide names of Social Security recipients to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Neil W. McCabe, from Breitbart, has confirmed that Senator Manchin will continue his support by voting to overturn this overreach of the SSA. This will eliminate pending restrictions of the right to bear arms onsome of the countrys most vulnerable citizens.

In a statement released on Manchins website, the senator said:

As a law-abiding gun owner, hunter, card-carrying life member of the NRA and Second Amendment advocate, I have always supported a West Virginians right to bear arms.This potential overreach by the Social Security Administration is a blatant infringement on the Second Amendment rights of millions of Americans. The assumption by the SSA that seniors and individuals with certain disabilities are a threat to society is both inaccurate and misguided and should not be grounds to revoke someones constitutional rights. That is why I joined my colleagues in strongly urging the Administration to end efforts to move forward with this proposal.

Its important topoint outthatpeople need to do their research and stop jumping to dangerous conclusions that are not based in fact. Disability status based upon age orvarious diseases does not equate to a person being inherently dangerous to themselves or anyone else.

Under a law enacted during the Obama Administration, the private information that the SSA could turnoverwould reside within the NICS database, which currently houses the names of individuals prohibited from purchasing or carrying a firearm. It is a violation of an individuals rights and privacy for the SSA to make their owndetermination about thoserecipients future actions based solely upon receiving certain benefitswithout the due process of the law. Once a persons information is entered into the NICS database, theywill immediately be deemed a threat to society. This will stand without any additional proof, other than the SSAs determination of having a propensity for or history of a violent past, present, or future.

Fortunately repealing this infringement upon millions of Americans right to bear arms seems to have gained strength during this new Congress.

The bill is currently awaiting movement in the Senate, where it currently resides after having passed through the House.

Author's Bio: Pamela Jablonski

Originally posted here:
The Fight to Ensure the Right to Bear Arms for Social Security Recipients Continues - Bearing Arms

Mark Hopkins | Special to the Daily News

Why did we need a militia/gun amendment added to the Constitution?

As is true with most momentous decisions in the life of our country, to fully understand why something was done, we must study the times in which such decisions were made.

The why of the Second Amendment in the 1780s is very different from answering that same question in 2017. The United States was a very different country in the years following the Revolution than it is today. When President Washington first took office, two key challenges faced him and the leadership in Congress.

First, the Revolutionary War had concluded just eight years before. England had been defeated on our shores and withdrew their troops. However, that didnt make us the strongest nation on the globe. England still had the strongest combination of army and navy. They still controlled Canada, just a short trip up the Hudson River from New York City. In short, they were still a threat to us.

At the conclusion of the war, General Washington and the leadership in Congress did not have the money to support a standing army. It was the consensus that the U.S. must make do with smaller, live-at-home militia units in the various states rather than a centralized army. Thus, it was their hope that the new country could be protected with a citizen army that was armed and ready to be called up at a moments notice. To make that work, each military age male needed to be armed and ready if needed.

Second, several citizen rebellions had occurred between the end of the war and the time of the passage of the new Constitution. Principal among these were the Shays Rebellion in Massachusetts and the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania. Without the creation of a local militia, neither state had the firepower to protect the government or the people.

In short, our young country did not have the money to support a standing army so adding the Second Amendment was for the expressed purpose of making sure that each state had the legal right to call men to arms. Just as important, it was necessary that those men were able to join the militia fully armed and ready to defend their state and their government.

The contention from some that the framers of the Constitution adopted the Second Amendment because they wanted an armed population that could take down the U.S. government should it become tyrannical just has no credence in history.

In past columns about the Second Amendment, we have established the historical context of the creation of the Second Amendment. The primary purpose was to create a legal foundation for a state militia, the forerunner of our National Guard. President Washington not only wrote letters to support such action but actually created his own militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania. Congress supported his action by creating The Militia Act, that allowed states to call up militia units to protect the government and the people as needed.

Resources used for these columns on the Second Amendment came from His Excellency: George Washington by Joseph Ellis (2004), James Madisons arguments for a strong federal government in The Federalist Papers, (1777-78) and The Readers Companion to American History by John A. Garraty and Eric Foner, which tells the stories of Shays Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion.

If a reader missed the two earlier columns, contact me at presnet@presnet.net for copies.

Dr. Mark L. Hopkins writes for More Content Now and Scripps Newspapers.

Read more:
MARK HOPKINS: Why did the Constitution need the Second Amendment? - Port St. Joe Star

5479349

With the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to replace Antonin Scalia on the Surpeme Court, Second Amendment supporters can celebrate. That would be very premature.

The battle over the confirmation of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General is going to be a cakewalk compared to the fight over Gorsuch. You have some snowflakes on the Left crying about how this Supreme Court seat was stolen from Merrick Garland (conveniently ignoring that Joe Biden threatened to do the same in 1992, and Schumer made similar comments in 2008).

What do you expect when the fight is for all the marbles? In this case, Gorsuch is a likely fifth vote to uphold the ruling made by the District Court in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands that tossed a semi-auto ban and a number of other strict gun laws. Hes the fifth vote that secures the Heller ruling that recognized the Second Amendment as an individual right and which tossed out D.C.s handgun ban. The McDonald case, which extended the prohibition on banning handguns to the states, is also secure.

When Gorsuch is confirmed and that, folks, is gonna be one hell of a fight. Senator Chuck Schumer wants 60 votes for confirmation. I dont necessarily object to that popping off the nuke option now makes it easier to replace the next openings (potentially Ginsburg and Breyer) with reliable conservatives. The good news is that Gorsuch briefly hit the 60-vote threshold until Jeanne Shaheen flip-flopped. This is why Kelly Ayotte and Mark Kirk mattered, people. Better to have started from 54 to work your way to 60, than the present 52.

In short, we need eight Democrats to cross over and vote. And while there are a lot of Senate Democrats facing re-election in states Trump won, to win their primaries, they must show fealty to the activists, donors, and Party leadership. Who do you think provides the money for the DNC efforts on behalf of Heidi Heitkamp, Jon Tester, and Joe Donnelly? The same folks who also donate to the DNC efforts for Chuck Schumer and the most anti-gun members of the House and Senate. By the way, did Heitkamp, Tester, and Donnelly back Jeff Sessions as AG? No.

The good news, if anything, is that the anti-Second Amendment forces and the rest of the Left seem to have been unable to really reach beyond their base on the issue of guns. Furthermore, outside that issue, Trump has made some serious progress (notably in bring jobs in). If that continues over the next four years, we could see significant gains in the Senate and a second Trump term.

That is a big if, though. The one thing we have seen in the first weeks is that the Left isnt just going to roll over after losing the 2016 presidential election. If anything, they intend to fight as furiously as they can to take our rights, and they are going to be persistent about it. We will need to match that persistence and fury to keep our rights.

Read the original here:
Will Sixty Senators Vote To Protect The Second Amendment? - Daily Caller

NorthJersey 12:06 a.m. ET Feb. 12, 2017

Ramsey Mayor Deirdre Dillon presides over the standing-room-only crowd of about 150 people hearing the public comments about the ordinance prohibiting the discharge of firearms within town, even at a gun range, at the Ramsey Borough Council meeting on Wednesday night.(Photo: Adam Anik/NorthJersey.com)

We consistently support smart gun laws. There are too many guns in the hands of people who should never have access to a firearm. At the same time, citizens have a constitutional right to own a firearm and a responsibility, if they choose to own one, to know how to use it. So what is happening in Ramsey is troubling.

A developer from Pennsylvania wants to convert the former Liberty Travel building into a firing range with 67 firing stalls, in addition to space for a restaurant and retail sales. It would be called the Screaming Eagle Club.

Council: Ramsey tables vote on gun law, prepares forlitigation

Letter: Ramsey should not fear shooting range

The moniker gives us pause, but Ramsey has an ordinance on the books since 1961 that, while prohibiting the firing of any pistol, shotgun, rifle or other type of firearms anywhere in the borough, exempts indoor and outdoor firing ranges.

As Staff Writer Tom Nobile reported, the borough was set to vote on a change in the ordinance on Wednesday night, but postponed a vote after being informed that litigation opposing the change would ensue. So for now or until the borough lawyers-up with a pro-bono-inclined law firm the proposal is on hold.

We understand that the proposed 60,000-square-foot indoor firing range may not be exactly what Ramsey officials want to see in their community, but we cannot support changing ordinances on the spot to keep out a legal business, particularly one supported by the Second Amendment.

If the borough has a problem with the size of the range and that it will create legitimate safety issues, make that case. If there is concern that adding a restaurant or shops may create a public safety issue, make that case. But we would be surprised if that case would be successful in court.

A firing range of this size will bring a lot of gun-toting folks into Ramsey. Most will be legal gun owners going to a controlled space to hone their skills. The borough should ensure there is proper supervision and safety checks. Yet that will not preclude the possibility of something bad happening.

This past July, a man committed suicide at the Gun for Hire range in Woodland Park. He was the seventh gun-range suicide in New Jersey since 2014. The July death raised concerns over ranges that rent guns to walk-in customers in many cases it is as simple as showing a valid drivers license;no background check is required.

Ramsey officials, as they study legal options, should determine whether they can prohibit gun rentals at the proposed range. That would mitigate some of the risks associated with the facility. We understand why many Ramsey residents dont want the range, but we also recognize that many people do. Wednesdays Borough Council meeting was contentious.

There may be ways for the council to restrict the size and scale of the proposed firing range, but we are wary of the timing of this proposed change to a borough ordinance that had permitted indoor firing ranges in Ramsey.

The developers attorney, James Jaworski, said Wednesday, The Second Amendment protects not just the right to keep and bear arms, but the right to be proficient in the keeping and bearing of arms.

We agree. Citizens have a right to bear arms, and we are all safer when they have been properly trained in their use.

Read or Share this story: http://northjersy.news/2l2iJxB

Here is the original post:
Editorial: Second Amendment rights in Ramsey - NorthJersey.com - NorthJersey.com