Category Archives: Second Amendment

Letter to Editor,

I have one simple question to ask the anti-gun folks protesting in Culver City. How would you defend yourself if an armed criminal broke into your house and threatened your life?

I have posed that question to our local Culver City social network groups, and I never got a coherent answer. Infact, one person whined to me and asked me what I would do. I simply answered that I would shoot the intruder and the person who was anti-gun would be dead.

As a consequence, to my answer, the whining anti-gun person complained to Facebook that I was violating community standards and that I should be suspended from Facebook.

Since fascist book, I mean Facebook, is biased against guns and the 2nd amendment, my Facebook account has been suspended for 30 days for supposedly violating the community standards of a whiner.

Not only are our 2nd amendment rights being attacked but our first amendment rights are being suppressed by big tech companies.

This all happened because I asked a simple question that has not been satisfactorily been answered by the anti-gun fanatics.

Robert Zirgulis

Culver City

See the original post:
Defends Second Amendment Gun Rights - Culver City Observer

Regarding Militias were the intent (Letters to the Editor, June 16): As a historian of the Second Amendment, I agree with historian Joe La Salas letter about its intent and the fallacy of originalism, but not that its misinterpretation today is the fault of identity politics.

Identity politics were embedded in the Constitution, written by white men, excluding Indian, Black people and women, plus Mexicans once the U.S. had forcibly annexed half of Mexico. Each group would experience oppression and struggle for citizenship and formal equality.

La Sala also fails to mention research about what the white militias codified in the Second Amendment were for: killing Indians to occupy their land and to guard against slave revolts.

The Second Amendment needs to be abolished for the white supremacist entity that it is.

Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, San Francisco

Regarding Alameda County should end mask mandate (Insight, June 12): A quick look at virus numbers across the area, state and country shows yet another large spike. Why? Because careless individuals like the authors of Sundays opinion piece think their personal freedoms trump everyone elses right to be safe.

As long as an attitude that somehow having to wear a mask in public is so horrific that you need to risk the health of others continues, this virus will continue to spike over and over.

Lets get real, so-called personal freedom is an illusion. You pay taxes, obey traffic laws, wear clothing, use a helmet on a bike or motorcycle, use a seat belt; these are just a few examples of curbs on your freedoms. Why are you not screaming about these attacks? Irony much?

Im really tired of all this whining of personal freedoms. We need to put this virus to sleep, and if that means a bit of inconvenience for all of us to get healthy, suck it up. Its really sad how self-centered so many have become. Its not all about you.

Time to stop being so selfish and consider a greater good.

Owen Rubin, San Leandro

Regarding Muni bond narrowly rejected voters (Bay Area & Business, June 15): Is the Chesa Boudin recall to blame? Connecting Measure A to the Boudin recall does little to address the root cause of the bonds failure: Proposition 13.

In 1978, California voters passed Proposition 13, which placed limits on property tax increases but also stipulated that any tax increase or bond measure, local or statewide, could only pass with a two-thirds super-majority vote. Over the past four decades, raising needed funds for critical public services has become increasingly difficult.

Measure A didnt fail because of pro-recall voters, we simply cant expect to pass $400 million for Muni when 66% of San Franciscans are required to vote yes. If our state representatives in Sacramento truly care about lifting our city out of this pandemic, then the answer is simple: Lower the super-majority threshold. Theyve already done this with school construction bonds, now its time to attend to our crippling infrastructure.

Madeline Cook, Oakland

Continue reading here:
Letters: What the real intent of the Second Amendment's militias was - San Francisco Chronicle

The corporate media is abuzz with news that senators have reached a bipartisan gun deal that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell endorsed on Tuesday but sacrificing Americans constitutional rights to hoaxing Democrats who have and will use their power to target their political enemies is nothing for Republicans to be proud of. Its the type of ideological surrender that they should lose their jobs and leadership positions over.

The bill text is still not available but from what Democrat Sen. Chris Murphys Twitter feed and the official framework indicate, the legislation could include sweeping measures such as problematic red flag laws that overstep too many constitutional bounds for Republicans to comfortably sacrifice.

Despite concerns that the legislation could compromise Americans Second, Fifth, and FourteenthAmendment rights, McConnell and 10 of his squishiest GOP colleagues including Sens. John Cornyn of Texas, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Rob Portman of Ohio, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Mitt Romney of Utah, Bill Cassidy of Lousiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania plan to join the Democrats anti-gun escapades. Together, they caved to the emotional blackmail wielded by Murphy and amplified by the corporate media.

Republicans have no good reason to trust Democrats to skilfully create legislation that is mindful of Americans rights. Nor do GOPers have reasons to support legislation that yields little evidence of actually deterring criminals from committing crimes that are already illegal.

After all, the leftist legislators supporting the gun deal are the same politicians whosupported spying on a president, falsely accused a Supreme Court nominee-turned-justice of rape, defended the Biden administration when it sicced the feds on parents who wanted a say in what happens in their childs classrooms, and so much more.

In the past, when Democrats have been given inch-sized opportunities to restrict gun rights, theyve sought to take miles and ban certain guns and gun parts altogether.

As my colleague Federalist Senior Editor David Harsanyi recently noted, historically, Democrats have not only tried to expand the definition of partner in domestic violence-motivated gun grabs but have also tried to broaden the reasons for losing your gun rights toincludemany types of non-violent misdemeanors.

Yet, some of the most powerful GOPers in Congress, even those who have sworn to protect the Second Amendment, are salivating to sign dangerously broad and likely deliberately unspecific legislation crafted by these same Democrats.

Congressional Democrats like Murphy and their allies in corporate media have already admitted that the gun deal includes considerably more than [Democrats] hoped for initially.

Thats because the Republicans involved in negotiations pressured for nothing, so they got nothing.

McConnells gun restriction lead negotiator Cornyn likes to brag about his A+ rating from the National Rifle Association but the Republicans former promises not to restrict Americans rights to guns have been repeatedly broken and will be violated if this new bill passes. Even Cornyns meaningless boasting about everything excluded from the Democrats bill signals theres nothing that was included that he found worthy of praising.

So not only have Republicans signed onto more gun restrictions but theyve also ceded constitutional ground to Democrats who have a history of abusing their self-assigned power to gatekeep who can access a firearm.

Yielding power to Democrats like Murphy who exploited the Texas tragedy to orchestrate a gun grab is nothing for McConnell or any Republicans to be proud of. As a matter of fact, thats something worth forcing them out of office over.

The people most at risk of losing in this bipartisan deal are Republicans who will never get the benefit of a winning compromise with Democrats and law-abiding citizens who under the Consitution have every right to own and use guns. Most congressional Republicans have sworn to protect these rights but right now, 10 of the ones closest to McConnell are not.

These Republicans were chosen carefully because most of them are not at risk of getting voted out of office soon, but the dozens of other Senate GOPers who see the problems with handing over control of Americans rights should do everything they can to bar them from leadership. If Republicans were willing to cave on the Second Amendment, how much emotional manipulation will it take for them to surrender on other key conservative issues?

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

Read the rest here:
McConnell, GOPers Attacking The 2nd Amendment Can't Be In Leadership - The Federalist

Mississippi leaders of the New Black Panther Party spoke out against black-on-black violence and the crime crisis gripping their community Tuesday.

"Black people shouldn't be killing black people, under no circumstances," member Steven Harris said during a press conference in Jackson, Mississippi. "You have to love your people."

Crime and death in the community have reached a crisis point, according to Sherrell Potts, a commander in the New Black Panther Party.

CALIFORNIA ANIMAL SHELTER BANS PET ADOPTIONS FOR GUN RIGHTS SUPPORTERS

"We just had a 5-year-old baby get killed at a convenience store," Potts said.

Leaders of the group also used Tuesday's press conference to announce a slew of events, including a National Black Unity Convention, according to a report.

Events will include a national self-defense training and a national self-defense Second Amendment assembly, the report noted.

Tuesday's remarks come less than a month after the New Black Panther Party called for an end to gang violence in minority communities.

Lets not be our own worst enemy. Lets be creative. Lets build," New Black Panther Party's General Taylormade said, according to a report.

"Let's provide a better future for the youth. Instead of allowing them to deteriorate, we have to set the tone. We cant sit back and say, 'Its not our problem.' It can become your problem. It can come sit at your doorstep."

Gangs need to put down their guns and community members need to combat the hardships faced in underrepresented areas, the group said.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

"Put the guns down. Stop killing your people. Learn how to unite in your community," Harris said.

More:
Pro-Second Amendment New Black Panther Party speaks out against rising crime - Washington Examiner

Submitted by Aaron Arkin.

In the 1963 movie of the same name, Billy Liar (played by Tom Courtenay) is an aggrieved young man, described as ambitious but lazy, living at home in a middle-class English family. Unable to free himself from his dependency and lacking the strength of character to move himself into the world of adult choices, he resorts to constant lying (thus the name) and frequent fantasizing. Of the latter, the most striking is when in response to a harangue from his parents, we see him armed with a machine gun angrily mowing down his entire family. For the movie audience, the contrast between Billys fantasy and what is actually and mundanely taking place at the family dinner table is shocking, and maybe for some, even vindicatory.

Of course, Billy wouldnt really murder his family, and in England he wouldnt have ready access to a machine gun. But experiencing grievance is not rare, and in our country awash in assault weaponry, the aggrieved dont always settle for just fantasy.

When establishing responsibility for a criminal act, three elements are sought: means, motive, and opportunity. In the case of mass murder, means is easy access to guns. Here in the US, their ubiquity was turbocharged by the Supreme Courts most recent interpretation of the Second Amendment which reads: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear, Arms, shall not be infringed.

Historian consensus for most of American history however, was that the Second Amendment limited the un-infringed possession of Arms to a citizen militia. They concluded the Founding Fathers were focused on keeping state militias from being disarmed in the absence of a national armed service. The revised interpretation of the Amendment, giving individuals that constitutional right, was provided by the opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia. Writing for the 5 to 4 majority in District of Columbia v. Heller (June 20, 2008), he ignored both the Amendments historical context, and its grammatical construction.

The Second Amendments grammatical construction, it is built on two clauses, the building blocks of sentences. Clauses are groups of related words (phrases) that contain both a subject and a verb. When a clause can stand alone as a complete sentence with a clear meaning, its considered independent. If it only makes sense when you join it with another clause, its dependent (or subordinate). A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State is a dependent clause because it makes sense, that is, it is only a complete thought when combined with its following clause the right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Another way we know that the Second Amendments grammatical construction is a complete and logical thought only when the two clauses are combined is because, according to the grammar text, Writing and Thinking, Foerster and Steadman, revised by McMillan, the meaning of the independent and dependent clauses holds if the full statement can be preceded by the terms if, in case that, provided that, unless, since, as, because, inasmuch as, in that, or and now that, without changing the thought of the sentence. For example: Inasmuch as a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed has the same meaning as the Second Amendment.

Summing up, the complete thought and logic of the two Second Amendment clauses is that, if militias are necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms wont be infringed. The converse of that statement is that, if militias are not necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms does not automatically follow. Since we no longer have or utilize self-armed citizen militias to secure the State, the Second Amendments rationale became irrelevant or inapplicable when the United States created its own armed services. One could reasonably argue that, in effect, the Second Amendment repealed itself.

As an avowed constitutional textualist (by the way, a questionable and controversial mode of legal interpretation of historic documents), who supposedly focused on the plain meaning of the text of legal documents to understand and emphasize how the terms in the Constitution would be understood by people at the time they were ratified, as well as the context in which those terms appeared, it is striking and ironic that Judge Scalia chose to ignore both the grammatical construction of the Amendment, and its historical context. In his dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens (joined by Ruth Bader Ginsberg, David Souter, and Steven Breyer) argued that the courts judgment was a strained and unpersuasive reading which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law. One may fairly conclude that in his desire to provide individual citizens the right to have Arms for self-protection, Judge Scalias commitment as a constitutional textualist was conditional.

Many supporters of Scalias interpretation do seem to sense that his reading of the Second Amendments intent rests on shaky legal ground; seeing any restriction on gun rights as a hole in the dike or a slippery slope, if you will, that could cause Scalias legal edifice to fail. Pointedly, we dont see similarly strenuous advocacy in service to the other nine Bill of Rights Amendments which, presumably, sit on firmer legal grounds. Shaky grounds or not, with the Courts ruling, we are now left to deal with its unintended consequences.

When it comes to grievance as a common human experience for motive (the second element of a criminal act) at the heart of mass shootings, I am brought in mind of an ironic saying, Lucky the man who knows who his enemy is. I take this to mean that if ones focus is on an enemy for ones difficulties or failures, it is not necessary to look within. And unfortunately as it turns out for us, for many people with that need there is no lack of enemies: different races, religions, political views, sexual identity and preferences, immigrants, economic classes, event attendees, people in power, people without power, high achievers, old people, young people, people who criticized, bullied, bested, insulted, or made fun of you; who cut you off on the highway, drove too slowly, wore the wrong color clothing, said something you didnt like, looked at you funnily, had something you were lacking. In other words, the other.

Opportunity (the third element of a criminal act) for mass murder is provided by so-called soft targets: night clubs, houses of worship, places of employment, grocery stores, schools, restaurants, malls, public gatherings, festivals, highways, homes, neighborhood streets. There is really no limit. Considering all of the above, we have a perfect storm for increasing the number of mass killings using semi-automatic and what are effectively automatic weapons.

Even in the face of this horrific violence however, there has been little appetite for meaningful political solutions. There is even refusal by many politicians to accept that the proliferation of lethal weaponry contributes to the slaughter. Instead we get the mantra: Guns dont kill people; people kill people, followed by arguments for increasing funding for mental health care (which ironically many politicians on the right have voted to defund in the past), hardening all soft targets (as if that were really possible), and getting tougher on criminals (although we incarcerate more people than any other nation on earth): anything but meaningful restrictions on access to guns and banning the most dangerous weapons.

Supporters of least restrictive gun laws also make the argument that we would be safer with more arming of the citizenry, including teachers, more open carry laws, and fewer restrictions on concealed weapons. As it is estimated there are already more guns in private hands in America then there are people, by that measure we should already be the safest country in the world. In fact, we have the second highest number of gun deaths in the world.

A more rational approach would be the one that has been adopted by other advanced democracies. They ignore any right to bear Arms type of construct, and balancing the interest in of public safety against providing self-protection for responsible citizens, just regulate the sale of weapons and the kinds of weapons permitted.

But back to Billy Liar: at the end of the movie, he finds himself in a position to make an actual grownup choice. Hes met a free-spirited young woman (Julie Christie, in her break-out role) who is ready to meet the challenges of the adult world and who offers him the opportunity to join her and start life on their own. And part of him wants this: to overcome his need for dependency; to have an adult relationship, and to make his own way. Sitting on a train about to leave the station, poised for an entry into an adult future, Billy chooses to leave the train to get some milk to drink (what could be more emblematic of dependency and lack of real agency?), promising Julie there is plenty of time for him to get back before the train leaves.

The audience instantly realizes Billy will not be coming back. True to form, he delays his return, described by one critic as the train leaves the station without him as, . . . shrugging on the platform and settling for the mediocrity he despises and probably deserves. Turns out Billy reserved the worst lies for himself. Seems he is not alone.

Go here to read the rest:
Letter: Billy Liar: Coming Soon To a Theater Near You The Suburban Times - The Suburban Times

Jerry Nowicki| Capitol News Illinois

In a 4-3 decisionwith a blistering dissent from the Republican minority, the Illinois Supreme Court declined to rule on a question of whether Illinois Firearm Owners Identification Act is unconstitutional.

It was the second time the case of the People v. Vivian Brown came before the court and the second time the court declined to rule on the constitutionality of the state statute requiring Illinoisans to receive a permit to legally own a gun.

The majority opinion released Thursday was written by Chief Justice Anne M. Burke and was procedural in nature. It contended that the White County Circuit Court failed to adhere to the Supreme Courts previous2020 rulingin the case, so it once again vacated the lower courts ruling that the FOID Act was unconstitutional.

Previous story: Illinois Supreme Court rules on gun cases, upholds Deerfield ban on assault weapons

Burke was joined in the majority by Democrats Mary Jane Theis, P. Scott Neville Jr. and Robert Carter.

Justice Michael Burke who is not related to the chief justice wrote the dissent, making up 11 of the 21 pages in the Thursday order.

He argued the majority decision was based on a misunderstanding of the record and a misreading of this courts precedents, and that it could keep the defendant in legal limbo for an untold period of years.

The case involves a White County resident, Vivian Claudine Brown, who was charged in March 2017 with possession of a firearm without a FOID card after police responded to her estranged husbands call that she had fired a gun in her home.

Police found the rifle but no evidence that she fired it. Nonetheless, she was charged with the crime.

Previous story: Judge finds Illinois firearm ownership card law unconstitutional as applied to 1 resident

But a circuit judge in White County threw out the charge, ruling that the fees and forms required to receive a FOID imposed an unconstitutional burden on Browns Second Amendment right to keep a firearm in her own home.

But it was an alternative ruling made by the same court without prompting from Browns legal team that allowed the states high court to decline to rule on the constitutional grounds.

That alternative ruling contended that the Illinois General Assembly, when it passed the FOID Act, never meant for it to apply in the home, because if it did, it would mean anybody with knowledge of a firearm and exclusive control over the area where it was kept could be construed as possessing the gun.

As a general rule, courts decline to rule on constitutional matters when a case can be decided on other grounds.

Because the circuit court ruled on an aspect of the FOID Act pertaining to state law, the Supreme Courts 2020 decision vacated the order pertaining to constitutionality and sent the matter back to White County to permit the normal appellate process to run its course.

The ruling was essentially a win for Brown, but her legal team contended it wouldnt stand up to an appeal. Thus, Browns attorneys filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that the inevitable loss on appeal would delay clarity in the case.

The circuit court agreed and reinstated the charges. Browns attorneys then filed a new motion to dismiss on constitutional grounds,which the judge upheld, finding that any fee associated with exercising the core fundamental Constitutional right of armed self-defense within the confines of ones home violates the Second Amendment.

Thus, the state appealed the rulingback to the Supreme Court, leading to the Thursday ruling in which the majority decided the lower court had no authority to reconsider the case after the Supreme Courts 2020 ruling.

When a cause is remanded by the reviewing court with instructions to the circuit court to enter a specific order, the reviewing courts judgment is, with respect to the merits, the end of the case, and there is nothing which the circuit court [is] authorized to do but enter the decree, the court wrote, quoting other case law.

If the lower court were allowed to make changes to the Supreme Courts ruling, the majority wrote, it would set a precedent upending our hierarchical judicial system.

The dissent from Michael Burke, however, argued that the majority asserted finality of its ruling while also suggesting that the proper place for review is now an appellate court, which is itself a lower court.

In reality, the judgment of the circuit court was not a judgment of this court that was final and conclusive on all the parties because this court declined to reach the merits of the statutory analysis and only vacated the circuit courts judgment on procedural grounds, Michael Burke wrote in the dissent. Accordingly, the trial court was free to reconsider the merits of that ruling, and nothing about it doing so upends our hierarchical judicial system.

Michael Burke argued that the majoritys supposition that Brown received complete relief when the circuit court vacated her charges was faulty, because the legal reasoning backing that decision is unlikely to hold up upon appeal.

Thus, he predicted, the case will ultimately end up back at the Supreme Court on the constitutional basis, only after a significant delay to Browns detriment as the case moves through the appellate court.

Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service covering state government that is distributed to more than 400 newspapers statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.

Go here to read the rest:
Why the Illinois Supreme Court declined to rule on constitutionality of FOID Act again - The State Journal-Register

To the Editor:

This whole discussion of assault rifles is filled with emotion, misleading information, outright false information and propaganda. Many democrats want to eliminate guns altogether. They tend to spin the Second Amendment to make it fit their desires. Lets look at the facts:1: The Second Amendment (if you read the Federalist papers) was enacted because our founding fathers wanted a check against the threat of a totalitarian government. It gave us the right to keep and bear arms. President Biden makes the ridiculous observation that we cant own a cannon. No one wants to own a cannon. We cant own a jet fighter either. However, we can own a gun to use for sport or for protection.We cant own a machine gun or a bazooka. Those are weapons of war. The democrats and gun control people want to try to classify most legally owned guns as weapons of war so they can have them confiscated. An assault weapon is a weapon that is fully automatic, like a machine gun. The AR15 is a semi-automatic firing gun and is not a weapon of war. It may look like a weapon of war but it isnt. However, President Biden and other democrats would have you believe it is a weapon of war.2: There are millions of guns in the United States. Most families own at least one gun for protection. There are many gun enthusiasts who own many guns they use for hunting and sport. They dont shoot people. Mentally ill and evil people use guns and bombs and knives to kill innocent people. This is not a gun issue, its a mental health issue.

Larry MoranVillage of Mallory Square

Read the original post:
Let's look at the facts when it comes to assault rifles and Second Amendment - Villages-News

By Rich Moniak

Jeff Lowenfels was at the bottom of my short list in the special primary election to complete Congressman Don Youngs term. Then Alaska Public Media asked all 48 candidates if theyd support a ban on the manufacture and importation of semiautomatic assault weapons, as defined in the federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. And Lowenfels won my vote with his unfiltered honesty.

Absolutely he replied. Military style, semiautomatic weapons were not contemplated by the second amendment, but even if they were, Id be in favor of the bans.

Lowenfels isnt he only one who understood banning such weapons is necessary to turn back the ugly tide of mass murder in this country. Within the 50-word limit imposed by APM, Santa Claus offered the most comprehensive answer. But hes not competing for a full term. And its unlikely Congress will take any action on this issue between the special election and the start of the next session in January.

Now, its hard to write Santa Claus in a sentence about politics without explaining the two-term councilman and current mayor pro tem from the city of North Pole legally changed his name in 2005. YES IF AMENDED (emphasis original) began his reply to the question. He then pointed to loopholes in law and called for additional changes.

One problem with the original law is it banned 18 specific weapons and similar models that had two specific features. But gun manufacturers could evade the laws intent by making slight modifications to those. The law also allowed the resale of any banned weapon that had been manufactured before it went into effect.

Its no wonder that studies of the bans effectiveness found little to no measurable reduction of the crimes it targeted.

Adam Wool, a Democrat who currently represents Fairbanks in the state House of Representatives, believes we need to limit access to these types of weapons but the details matter. However, he wasnt suggesting those loopholes be closed because the ban that was previously in law was acceptable. The problem now is its different political landscape.

His response, as well as those from Chris Constant, Mary Peltola, and Al Gross, displayed one critical difference. There are too few candidates on the left with the courage to state an important factLike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It does not include a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

Those words were written Justice Antonin Scalia in the majority opinion of the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller. It represented the first time in American history that the constitutional right of an individual to keep and bear arms was not connected to service in a militia. Scalia, the original originalist in interpreting the Constitution, went on to defend the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Simply put, Congress has the constitutional power to ban the ones in question.

Constant qualified his support for doing so by stating We have to carefully navigate the Second Amendment.

Without mentioning assault weapons, Peltola said she supports the creation of a bipartisan congressional committee tasked with bringing common sense gun legislation that respects our 2nd amendment rights.

Gross didnt let the Second Amendment get in his way of supporting universal background checks. But he thinks that and a nationally standardized interview with local authorities constitute an appropriate level of scrutiny for anyone who wants to buy an AR-15.

Those positions concede too much authority to the Second Amendment.

And to Republican candidates who argue a national ban on assault weapons, or any other reasonable restriction on gun sales and ownership, violates it.

Michael Gerson referred to such beliefs as somewhere on the far side of laughable ignorance.

A former senior policy adviser to President George W. Bush and the Heritage Foundation, Gerson isnt one of the 48 candidates. In the conservative commentary he writes for Washington Post, hes free to speak his conscience.

Thats a challenge for candidates seeking public office. But voters who want sensible gun restrictions should think twice before supporting a candidate who is afraid to declare that the Second Amendments rights are not absolute.

Rich Moniak is a Juneau resident and retired civil engineer with more than 25 years of experience working in the public sector. Columns, My Turns and Letters to the Editor represent the view of the author, not the view of the Juneau Empire. Have something to say? Heres how to submit a My Turn or letter.

Read the original here:
Opinion: How the Second Amendment informed my special election primary vote - Juneau Empire

by Kevin Cody

Lance Dominguez, of Torrance, spent two weeks working with Hermosa Beach, and Manhattan Beach city hall, police, and fire officials to get a permit for Saturdays March for Our Lives. The march drew an estimated 200 gun legislation supporters, who met at noon at the Manhattan Beach Pier, and marched to the Hermosa Beach pier for a rally on Pier Plaza. The permit required he pay for security.

I find it ironic, Dominguez told the marchers, that it is more difficult to organize a peaceful march than for an 18-year-old to walk into a store, and walk out with an AR-15, and 100 rounds of ammunition. If exercising my First Amendment right to assembly can be regulated to protect public safety, shouldnt the same be true of those exercising their Second Amendment right to bear arms? he asked.

Seaside is the Christmas lights neighborhood. You may have even bought hot chocolate from Rebeccas son David, Dominguez said.

Boldrick introduced herself over the loudspeakers as a former Torrance School District teacher. Her son David, and daughter Lauren attended Seaside Elementary, Calle Mayor Middle School, and South High School before the family moved to Parkland, Florida in 2016.

The Torrance School District began active shooter drills after the mass shooting in 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School (in Newtown, Connecticut). But I never dreamed my childrens school would have an active shooter, Boldrick said.

On Feb. 14, 2018, Boldricks son and daughter were in class at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, when former student Nikolas Cruz, 19, opened fire on students and teachers with an AR-15 assault rifle, killing 17 people and injuring 17 others.

David and Laurens childhood ended that day. My daughter lost four of her best friends, Boldrick said.

The following month, her son David Hogg, co-organized the inaugural March for Life on Washington D.C. Time magazine named him one of the 100 most influential People in 2018.

The March for Our Lives (South Bay) gets underway at the Manhattan Beach Pier June 11. Photo by Garth Meyer

Saturdays March for Life was one of hundreds nationwide, held in response to the May 24 killing of 19 students, and two teachers, and the wounding of 17 others at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas by an AR-15, wielded by 18-year-old Uvalde High School student Salvador Ramos.

Following Boldricks recorded address, former Torrance school counselor Christine Macinnis told the marchers, Over 90 percent of mass shootings are by young white men. But it is easier to get a gun than a therapist We cant keep saying this is a mental health issue without providing mental health.

Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, who was reelected last Tuesday to a fifth term representing the 66 Assembly District, said California has the strongest gun laws in California. Its 111 gun laws include background check requirements; and a red flag ban on high risk people having guns..

In January, Muratsuchi co-authored a bill that would prohibit manufacturing, andr assembling unserialized firearms, commonly known as ghost guns.

Im proud to say every time the National Rifle Association releases a scorecard, I get an F, Muratsuchi said.

The rally was briefly interrupted when a man, who declined to identify himself, approached the speaker stage and shouted, What about the pharmaceutical industry? They kill more people than guns. (Prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death, after heart disease, and cancer in the United States and Europe, according to the website PubMed.com).

Marcher Justin House, of Hermosa Beach, guided the anti protester away from the stage. He and Hermosa Beach Police Josh Droz, kept the man engaged in conversation until the rally ended, approximately 30 minutes later.

Lunch at the Strand House was underway. Spikeball on the beach too, on an overcast June day.

On the sidewalk, a young Black woman held a piece of cardboard aloft as she walked toward a crowd gathered on the Manhattan Beach Pier.

I Want to Live, it read.

Other signs and blue shirts converged and a voice from a megaphone began.

No more silence, end gun violence!

The crowd grew.

A bearded man with a long skateboard stood at the edges holding a yellow flag: Dont Tread on Me.

The march went up the Strand walkway.

No more silence! End gun violence! continued the chants. Kids should have fun, not run from a gun!

More signs amidst the marchers made other statements: We call B.S., vote them out; 21st weapons, 18th century laws; The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to keep the gun out of his hands; A well-regulated militia didnt kill our kids.

Marchers were greeted at the Hermosa Beach Pier by a group of red-shirted 10-year old girls soliciting lemonade sales for their club soccer team.

The March for our Lives event cost $7,000, for permits, security and supplies, organizer Dominguez said, paid for by a grant from the national office of March for Our Lives.

A Torrance resident and single father of three young children, Dominguez had never before been involved in planning an event like this.

I had absolutely no clue what I was getting myself into, but Im glad we pulled it off, he said. Because of the people who are afraid to speak up, my voice has to be louder.

He noted plans to re-form a South Bay chapter of March for Our Lives in local high schools.

Speaker Nina Tarnay, a Manhattan Beach mother of three, announced to the crowd Colorforchange.org, a project she co-founded which allows people to download and color postcards to send to political representatives. ER

Read more:
First and Second Amendments focus of March for Our Lives in Hermosa Beach - Easy Reader

U.S. Reps. Rodney Davis and Mary Miller are running in the Republican primary for Illinois 15th Congressional District on June 28, 2022. This race is one of six incumbent-vs.-incumbent primaries occurring in 2022 as a result of congressional redistricting after the 2020 census.

Davis has represented Illinois 13th Congressional District since 2013. Miller has represented the 15th Congressional District since 2021. According to data from Daily Kos, 28% of the new 15th Districts population came from the old 13th District (represented by Davis), and 31% came from the old 15th District (represented by Miller). Illinois lost one congressional district following the 2020 census.

The Herald & Reviews Brenden Moore wrote, The race has been among the most contentious incumbent-versus-incumbent primaries in the country. Davis and Miller have traded barbs over who is the true conservative candidate in the race. According to OpenSecrets, the primary currently comes in second in total satellite spending out of all 2022 U.S. House races, with over $7.5 million spent as of June 15.

Davis said, I stick with my core values and principles. I have always been pro-life and will continue to stick by those values and principles. Ive always stood up for the Second Amendment. I will continue to do that. But what separates me from my opponent is I have a record of actually governing. When people put Republicans in charge, at any level of government, they actually expect them to do the job. Davis criticized Miller for voting against the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, saying, All Mary Miller has to show for her time in Congress is quoting Hitler and voting with Democrats like [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] and the far left squad to defund our military and block a pay raise for our troops. Thats shameful. Its clear that Mary Miller is all talk, no action.

The Illinois Farm Bureau, Illinois Fraternal Order of Police State Lodge, and Illinois AFL-CIO endorsed Davis, along with U.S. Reps. Mike Bost (R-Ill.) and Darin LaHood (R-Ill.).

Miller said, Im the only Republican member of Congress from Illinois whos fighting every aspect of the Biden agenda and putting America first. Im fighting for real election security so that voters decide elections, not the ballot counters. And Im proud to be the only Republican from Illinois to vote against the Biden-Pelosi gun confiscation bill which would have allowed firearms to be seized by the federal government. Miller criticized Davis for a bill he cosponsored in 2019 that would have provided grants for states to enact extreme risk protection order laws, or red flag laws. Miller said, I am the only candidate with an A rating from the NRA and Gun Owners of America because I support our Second Amendment! Everyone is tired of Red Flag Rodney Davis, who stabbed conservatives in the back by supporting federal gun confiscation.

Former President Donald Trump (R) endorsed Miller on January 1, 2022. U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Club for Growth, the Conservative Political Action Coalition, and the House Freedom Fund also endorsed Miller.

Major independent observers rate the general election as solid or safe Republican.

Visit link:
US Reps. Rodney Davis and Mary Miller compete for re-election in Illinois' 15th Congressional District Ballotpedia News - Ballotpedia News