Category Archives: Second Amendment

U.S. Rep. Bob Good handily defeated a challenge by Charlottesville native Dan Moy for the 5th District Republican nomination Saturday.

The GOP used a convention at Hampden-Sydney University for its selection process to pick a candidate for Novembers election.

Good will now face off with Charlottesville native Josh Throneburg, a Democrat, in a battle for a seat in Congress. Throneburg secured his partys nomination in April after Andy Parker failed to get an appropriate number of signatures needed to appear on a primary ballot.

I want to thank the delegates from across the 5th District who came to Farmville and took on the responsibility of electing their Republican nominee for Congress, Good said in a statement Saturday. I am humbled and honored that they have once again placed their trust in me to fight for their values in Washington.

Good secured his bid for reelection with 84% 1,488 to 271 of Saturdays votes. Among Halifax delegates, the vote was a bit closer at 52 for Good and 23 for Moy, according to the weighed calculations.

I want to congratulate Congressman Bob Good on his victory, Moy, who made a South Boston appearance in March to seek delegates for his campaign, said in a Saturday statement.

Now it is time to unite and focus on keeping the 5th District red, Moy said. I fully endorse him for his reelection and look forward to continuing to build the Republican committee in Charlottesville and support our nominee.

Good is running for his second term in the United States House of Representatives after winning the seat in 2020. He ousted then-U.S. Rep. Denver Riggleman in an unconventional GOP convention held drive-thru style amid the coronavirus pandemic.

While a majority of the sprawling 5th District remains the same and includes all of Halifax County newly redrawn maps added Goods hometown of Lynchburg as well as new counties in the east near Richmond.

Throneburg, who recently appeared at the TJM Community Center in Cluster Springs, said fewer than 2,000 of party faithful turned out for Saturdays convention, representing only 0.02% of the population Virginias 5th-District.

This district has lacked real representation for far too long, Throneburg said in a statement. The reality is that Bob Good failed the people he serves.

Throneburg said the sitting congressman hasnt passed notable legislation and failed to bring federal money to the district he serves.

On the other hand, Good in his Saturday statement after the convention pointed to 31 pieces of legislation hes introduced on issues from lockdowns to the Second Amendment.

From day one, I made serving my constituents a priority Good said. We didnt just wait for people to call us.

Good and his office have also helped more than 2,000 Virginians cut through bureaucratic red tape, his news release stated.

So far, we have helped our constituents recover over $9.5 million that was owed to them from the IRS, VA, Small Business Administration, Social Security and many more federal agencies, Good said.

Throneburg also attacked Goods endless culture wars in his release.

Ive been meeting with voters in this district for more than a year, and what I have heard over and over is that people here arent invested in partisan politics: what they want is a representative in DC who is looking out for them, not a person who is there to serve his own agenda and his own ambition. Thronburg said. Bob Goods two-year record demonstrates that his priorities dont lie with the district.

On the point of politics, Good blames the Democrats control of Washington for skyrocketing prices of gas, groceries and rent.

I believe voters are going to give Republicans a chance to control Congress and stop the Biden agenda in its tracks, Good said. We must rise to that challenge, and do what we say we are going to do.

View post:
Good wins nomination in battle for 5th District - YourGV.com

Do-nothing RINOs

I have new neighbors who moved here to escape the political climate in Portland, Ore. After my early voting in the primary, I discussed my choices with the neighbors, who informed me that they were reviewing the stance of the candidates on the Arkansas Voter's Guide. We are on the same page leaning toward the conservative side.

I was disappointed to hear from my neighbors that Sarah Huckabee Sanders had refused to take the survey. How could a candidate miss the chance to let the voters know how they feel about the issues? I see arrogance in her option. We already have too many do-nothing RINOs in office. I applaud my new neighbors for making informed decisions and researching the Voter's Guide before casting a vote. I might have made a mistake by voting for her.

CURTIS FESLER

Mountain View

Company they keep

Wait. Before you vote in the Republican primary: Follow the money and the endorsements; they both have long-reaching tentacles. Ignore the Trump endorsements, they were blindly secured by the GOP establishment. Review the Family Council voter guide, ArkansasVotersGuide.com. Check out opensecrets.org. Vote for freedom. Vote out incumbents; you be the term limits!

We are in danger of losing our freedom; we must remove the Republicans in name only, i.e., RINO. So who are the RINOs?

Sarah Huckabee Sanders is the "proxy" incumbent running for governor. Make no mistake, this will be Mike Huckabee's third term. We have already had 10 years of the Huckabee dynasty. The bulk of Sarah's contributions are out-of-state donors. So who's buying Arkansas?

Asked by this paper whether she believes the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Trump, Sanders said, "We know there is fraud in every election. How far and wide it went, I don't think that will be something that will be ever determined." Hey, Sarah, it has been determined: 2000Mules.com.

Asa Hutchinson endorsed Sarah. Sarah endorsed John Boozman, a RINO who said Trump should be charged for Jan. 6. Arkansas for Leadership is a leadership PAC affiliated with John Boozman. Good place to hide contributions. Sarah also endorsed French Hill (RINO) and Tim Griffin (RINO). And in turn, they all endorsed her. No quid pro quo there, right. And now Mike Pence has endorsed Sarah. Remember, Pence betrayed Trump and the American people. We should judge these RINOs by the company they keep.

SHARON HATCHER

Mountain View

Not what it's about

A TV ad supporting John Boozman for re-election is getting a lot of play recently. As the ad extols Boozman for supporting the Second Amendment, a photo shows him out in a field in camo vest with shotgun over his arm, obviously hunting.

Please remind the senator, his supporters, and all Arkansans that the Second Amendment is not, was not, and never has been about hunting.

CRAIG SHELTON

Little Rock

Having it both ways

What's the matter with the so-called Christians in Arkansas, and the U.S. as well, that they are not for gun control? You can't be pro-life if you are not for gun control.

Stop being bullies. You can't fool your Lord and Savior. Stay in your lane. You will stand before God someday to answer for your judgment. No need to respond.

GLENDA HILL

Alexander

The metamorphosis

Our family connections were first recorded over 150 years ago in the minutes of the Hickory Plains Missionary Baptist Church where our ancestors were deacons. And my family and his continued to conduct business together well into the 20th century. I can still vividly recall the tall, dignified figure of his grandfather, W.J. Caskey, as he tended to his tasks and made the rounds on Main Street of Des Arc. The hardware and funeral businesses required the respect of the community, and Mr. Caskey fostered that attitude with his vested suit, beaver hat and with his acquaintance with local families.

But the recent commentary of Rex Nelson has devolved from that of a respected historian and it has veered toward an attempt at political punditry. The reverence afforded his maternal grandfather is no longer safeguarded. Perhaps Mr. Nelson is following the lead of his colleague, John Brummett, who has suggested that there are only two types of Republicans, the evil and the less evil.

It would not be a surprising metamorphosis for Mr. Nelson to succumb to the pressures of an employer that apparently holds complete and total disdain for the vast majority of its customers, the citizens of Arkansas. It appears those with opposing views are promoted as being unenlightened, gullible, irredeemable and deplorable. It seems such a counterproductive strategy for a struggling business.

W.K. HOLLOWAY

Conway

Originally posted here:
OPINION | LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Do-nothing RINOs | Company they keep | Not what it's about - Arkansas Online

The Buffalo community in upstate New York is still mourning the senseless massacre that occurred on May 15, when a gunman entered a local grocery store and killed 10 people in a racially motivated attack.

On Tuesday, President Joe Biden traveled to the city and condemned the incident as violence inflicted in the service of hate. He also labeled it an act of domestic terrorism.

Jill and I bring you this message from deep in our nations soul. In America, evil will not win. I promise you. Hate will not prevail. And white supremacy will not have the last word, Biden said on Tuesday.

The Buffalo shooting and other domestic white supremacist terrorist attacks on the countrys minority populationgrowing concerns for federal authoritiesillustrate the difficulties of working toward racial reckoning in a firearm heavy nation.

Read more: The Buffalo Shooter Targeted a City Haunted by Segregation

The burden of Americas long love affair with guns disproportionately affects the Black community and has done so since the Second Amendment was written into law. Carol Anderson is an African-American studies professor at Emory University and the author of The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America, which explores the history of the Second Amendment and how it has kept the Black population helpless and at higher risk of gun violence, especially at the hands of white supremacists.

Speaking with TIME, Anderson discussed the Buffalo mass shooting and how it fits into the larger discussion around the Second Amendment and the targeting of Black civilians.

Your book explores how the Second Amendment has historically had a negative impact on the Black population. How does this recent mass shooting in Buffalo fit into that idea?

It fits because of the framing of who black people are. [The shooter] believes in the replacement theory, the one thats been spewed by Tucker Carlson and by Elise Stefanik about the ways that black people are a threat to the white community, that theyre going to take over, that black people are dangerous, and that they have to be removed, they have to be compelled to leave. That was so much of the genesis of the Second Amendment, that black people are a threat, that they are dangerous that they pose ill will upon whites, particularly slaveholding whites.

[The founding fathers] made sure that the constitution had an amendment that provided the right for a well-regulated militia. In early America, that militia was really about controlling the enslaved population and putting down slave revolts. Thats what they were afraid of. Without the militia, without their guns, they felt they would be left defenseless.

When you hear the killer in Buffalo, talking about theyre trying to take over and weve got to create terror that will [make them] want to leave, thats rooted in Americas history. The slaveholders didnt want Black folks to leave because they needed somebody to do the work. What they wanted was a docile compliant, controlled Black population.

Whats the correlation between white supremacy and gun rights in America today?

They go hand together like love and marriage. We also saw it in the insurrection on January 6, because here you had black folks voting, despite the pandemic, because they knew that democracy was on the line. And because they did not vote for a white supremacist, but in fact voted that white supremacist out of power. You have this uprising, spurred by Trump and company identifying the sources of the threat, the sources of the steal.

There were over 900 messages to election workers and poll workers were so many times the Second Amendment was invoked as the right that would be used in order to take out these election workers who stole the election.

One of the things I laid out in the book is that in this period that were in right now, the standard-bearers that we see as being the right to Second Amendment citizenship, stand your ground and open carry. When that is applied to Black folks they dont have those rights. In terms of stand your ground, white people are 10 times more likely to walk away with a justifiable homicide ruling when they kill somebody Black than when somebody Black kills somebody White.

Weve seen these kinds of mass shootings happening in the recent past where a minority group is targeted. Why cant we find a way to address this problem?

It is the power of anti-blackness, the power of the fear of Black people. The fear of black folks is so intense, that we have been willing as a society to lose our safety and security in our churches, in our grocery stores, in our schools and where we work, just to ensure access to guns. But 400 million guns have not made us a safer society. It has not brought about security.

[The country] is afraid of black people.

Read more: Theres No Such Thing As a Lone Wolf. The Online Movement That Spawned the Buffalo Shooting

The shooter in the Buffalo incident made it very clear what his motives were and had no problem making his views public. How come he wasnt seen as a threat beforehand?

Part of the perversion of anti-blackness is the inability of this society to identify a threat, a genuine threat.

[Think of] Kyle Rittenhouse with his AR-15 and [was met] by the cops who were like oh, we are so glad you are here. Even after he guns down three people killing two of them. He walks back with his hands up to surrender and the cops go right by him. They dont see a threat. The Buffalo killer popped up on the radar because of threats he was making in high school. They investigate it and nothing came of it because he wasnt viewed as a threat.

When you look at gun ownership today and see that a large percentage of legal ownership is white but theres been an increase in Black gun ownership over the past year or so, what do you think is driving that increase?

Part of what is driving it was the Trump years and the reality of Black folks basically being on their own. Nobody was going to come to rescue them. So they were going to have to defend themselves, kind of the same way that was happening after the Civil War. The same way that was happening in the rise of Jim Crow, where you had Black folks arming themselves, because they could not rely upon law enforcement to protect them from the violence.

In terms of gun violence, illegal weapons find their way into poor Black communities and that drives a lot of the violence in those communities. What does that say about the flaws of the Second Amendment?

Because there is a floodgate of weapons that go into those communities, you have the communities trying to put a stop to the homicides that are happening but the other things that need to be done arent being done. Quality education, social structures and social support systems are not being implemented. Those have been gutted. Employment opportunities have been gutted. So what those communities are trying to do is limit access to guns. Its one thing to get into an argument, its another thing to get into an argument with a gun.

Whats the middle ground between someones right to own a weapon and protecting the Black population from attacks like this?

There are states like Georgia and Texas, that are loosening their gun regulation laws around background checks and training. There are more guns than people in the United States. The killer in Buffalo had on body armor with a semi-automatic weapon. AR-15s arent good for anything but hunting people. Why would we have regular civilian access to that kind of weaponry?

If so-called gun rights advocates give an inch on these automatic and semi-automatic weapons then the belief is that theyll be coming to take all of your guns. That poisonous rhetoric is why we dont see movement on sane gun safety laws.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

More Must-Read Stories From TIME

Write to Josiah Bates at josiah.bates@time.com.

Read more here:
The Buffalo Shooting, Black America, and Guns - TIME

For full disclosure, I am against any form of violent assembly. I am against "peaceful assembly" on private property without permission.

I dislike loud and obscene "peaceful assembly".

Having identified where I stand, I find it exceptionally hypocritical that Mr. Exum is so adamantly in favor of the Florida Bill that "muffles" the First Amendment right of peaceful assembly, those protesting the draft abortion decision, but says nothing about the "peaceful assembly" of pro-life protesters at abortion clinics hindering access. Or protests against mask use. Or the Westboro Baptist Church anti-homosexual or trans-gender protests. Or the Trump Stop The Steal protests. Or protests against Disney for criticizing the FL Don't Say Gay law.

Most of those protests were loud and obscene. For him, and for many of the Republican Chattanoogan.com readers of his column, I suspect that type of peaceful assembly is perfectly acceptable.

Yet the Republicans are against the Right To Peaceful Assembly when it does not meet their standards, and hypocritically defend the "right to peaceful assembly" that occurred on Jan. 6, and the Republican instigators.The Founding Fathers had no idea of the electronic amplification of sound, but were aware of and subject to the "heckling" of the times. I suspect that "heckling" was not in a polite tone either.

The First Amendment is silent (pun intended) on the volume of a peaceful protest, as well as the obscenities that may be hurled.But I will take that loud and obscene "peaceful assembly" of the First Amendment any day instead of the Second Amendment right to own military grade weapons and the shooting and deaths that occur because of their availability. For Republicans, the First Amendment needs to be amended to fit their ideas, but they do not dare tread on the sanctity of the Second Amendment.

Joe Warren

See the original post here:
Muffling The 1st Amendment - The Chattanoogan

If we are "sick of massacres," says the headline over Gail Collins' latest New York Timescolumn, we should "get rid of the guns." Which guns? Collins herself is not sure. Sometimes she seems to be talking about the rifles that politicians call "assault weapons." She refers a few times to "assault rifles" and mentions "the infamous semiautomatic AR-15." But she also talks about banning "semiautomatic rifles" and "semiautomatics" in general, which are much broader categories that include many other commonly used guns.

As long as they do not have military-style features such as a folding stock, a pistol grip, or a threaded barrel, semi-automatic rifles are not covered by state "assault weapon" laws. The bill aimed at reviving the federal ban that expired in 2004 explicitly exempts dozens of semi-automatic rifles by name, and it applies to handguns only if they have specified characteristics such as a threaded barrel, a second pistol grip, or a barrel shroud.

Collins does not seem to understand any of this, which is both surprising and typical. It is surprising because Collins has worked at theTimes since 1995, oversaw the paper's editorial page for six years, and has frequently written about gun control. It is typical because Collins has repeatedly demonstrated that she is unfamiliar with the firearms she wants to ban and unwilling to think through the practical consequences of the policies she favors, both of which are common failings among gun control enthusiasts.

After the 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona, Collins expressed amazementat the idea that Americans have "a right to bear Glocks." She drew a distinction between the Glock 19 used by the Tucson shooter and "a regular pistol, the kind most Americans think of when they think of the right to bear arms." Unlike a "regular pistol," she explained, a Glock 19 "is extremely easy to fire over and over, and it can carry a 30-bullet clip."

Although Collins claims a Glock 19 is not "a regular pistol," it is one of the most popular handguns in the United States. And contrary to what she seems to think, all semi-automatic pistols fire at the same rate, and they typically accept magazines of various sizes.

In 2012, Collins described "assault weapons" as "guns that allow you to shoot off 100 bullets in a couple of minutes"i.e., about one round per second. That description would cover any semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine, including "regular" pistols as well as many of the rifles specifically exempted from the proposed federal ban on "assault weapons."

Three years later, Collins averred that "assault weaponsseem to be the armament of choice for mass shootings." Not according to a recent National Institute of Justice report on public mass shootings from 1966 through 2019, which found that 77 percent of the perpetrators used handguns. In the same column, Collins asserted that "semiautomatic weapons are totally inappropriate for either hunting or home defense," which would come as a surprise to the millions of Americans who use them for those purposes.

Collins continues her confusion in her latest column. She says Congress could "toughen background check laws" or "limit the sale of semiautomatics to people with hunting licenses"a puzzling suggestion in light of Collins' insistence that "semiautomatic weapons" are "totally inappropriate" for hunting. But Collins thinks it would be better to "just get rid of them."

There are a few problems with that proposal. Given how Collins has defined the guns she wants to eliminate, her ban would apply to a host of firearms "in common use" for "lawful purposes," which the Supreme Court has said are covered by the Second Amendment. The forbidden firearms would include most handguns, which the Court described as "the quintessential self-defense weapon."

Maybe Collins, when she refers to "semiautomatics," actually means the guns covered by the proposed federal "assault weapon" ban. But just as she does not understand how that category is defined, she does not seem to realize that the bill would not "get rid of" those firearms. Like the expired 1994 ban, it would allow current owners to keep them.

There are sound pragmatic reasons for that grandfather clause. Based on production and import data from 1990 through 2016, the National Shooting Sports Foundation estimated that Americans owned more than 16 million guns that politicians would classify as "assault weapons." That number surely is even bigger now than it was six years ago. Even if legislators shared Collins' disregard for property rights, the Second Amendment, and the Fourth Amendment, any attempt to confiscate all those weapons would be a practical and political nightmare.

At the same time, the fact that maybe 20 million "assault weapons" would remain in circulation even if Congress renewed the ban means they would still be available to mass shooters who wanted them. And since the definition of "assault weapons" is based on functionally unimportant features (another point Collins overlooks), murderers would still have plenty of equally lethal alternatives even if all those guns disappeared tomorrow.

Unfazed by these considerations, Collins thinks it is obvious that Congress should ban "semiautomatics," "semiautomatic rifles," "assault rifles," or whatever. The important thing, she says, is to "think positive" and fight "a simple battle."

Collins does concede that "getting rid of assault rifles won't solve the gun problem as long as people in many states are allowed to own pistols and carry them when they stroll about the town." In reality, "getting rid of assault rifles"whatever Collins thinks they are and however that would be accomplishedcannot reasonably be expected to have any meaningful impact on "the gun problem."

Leaving aside all the other problems with that plan, it would not affect the firearms that murderers (including mass shooters) overwhelmingly prefer. In 2019, according to the FBI's numbers, handguns accounted for more than 90 percent of the weapons used in gun homicides where the type of firearm was specified. Just 5 percent of those guns were rifles, only a subset of which would qualify as "assault weapons."

Since Collins is dismayed by the fact that Americans are "allowed to own pistols"(even the "regular" kind), it is not hard to imagine what she thinks the next step should be. A handgun ban would be not just flagrantly unconstitutional and politically impossible but also utterly impractical. In a country where civilians own more than 400 million firearms, with handguns being the most common kind, the idea is nothing but a fantasy.

The same could be said of pretty much everything that Collins says about gun control. She routinely substitutes emotion for logic, offers anecdotes instead of evidence, and makes wildly wrong factual assertions that could be corrected by a quick Google search. The fact that her astonishing sloppiness and magical thinking pass for policy analysis in a leading newspaper speaks volumes about the state of the gun control debate.

Go here to read the rest:
New York Times Columnist Gail Collins Proposes a 'Simple Battle' To 'Get Rid of the Guns' - Reason

Our legislature and governor and also local county governments are very concerned that our citizenry are not carrying weapons and want to do something about it. Our local Board of Supervisors has proclaimed Jasper County a Second Amendment county resolving that they believe the Second Amendment to be crucial for the survival of our republic.

Now, I dont dispute that, but I am concerned that many of the citizenry either are unaware of the importance of gun ownership and dont follow these legislative encouragements; or, disagree with these efforts to have them arm themselves. And in support of this observation, I note that when walking in downtown Newton, I see no one carrying a gun. I can walk into one of the businesses on the square and it appears to be empty of firearms, unless, of course, a gun is being hidden in a purse or under a shirt. But what is the use of having a gun on you if you cant show it to the public and forestall any issue of having to use it. After all, if I meet someone with a gun in full view, I am less likely to attack that person or try to rob him or her. I really think they should be in plain view.

Unfortunately, this movement to encourage the carrying of weapons when out and about must have as its primary rationale the failure of our various law enforcement agencies to protect us from harm. I get the response when asking someone the reason he or she is carrying a weapon, or has a weapon in a car loaded and ready, that it is for protection. So, for instance, when shopping at Walmart, getting from the car to the front door could be perilous, and if any of you have googled the people of Walmart you are aware of the dangers lurking in the aisles there. I do note that Hy-Vee is heeding the cry for more security in hiring their own to patrol the isles. I would expect the meat counters might be the most hazardous especially now that meat prices have increased substantially.

But back to this idea of safety. Purportedly, the police the city hires, and the deputies the county hires are here to protect the citizens of Newton and Jasper County. There must be a surge in belief that they are failing in that duty. By spending their time stopping cars for various traffic offenses and arresting people for such things as driving under suspension rather they should be on the lookout for mayhem walking the streets of downtown Newton or other communities, keeping an eye out for trouble makers especially in gathering places such as schools, churches, taverns, restaurants, and in other ways protecting the citizens they are sworn to protect. Hauling some poor soul to jail for not having a drivers license doesnt seem to be an activity that protects us from harm. Normally those people need all the help they can get and rather than take them to jail, should be escorted to their destination. After all, it is the motto of our law enforcement that they are here to serve and protect. I can think of few services that would be better appreciated than law enforcement offering rides to people who dont have drivers licenses.

However, if safety is not the motivation for arming the public, then we have an altogether different analysis.

Richard E. H. Phelps II

Mingo

More here:
The gun thing Newton Daily News - Newton Daily News

American Rebel Holdings Inc

NRA AM New Products picture

AREB will also introduce two new product offerings, the American Rebel Freedom safe line and the American Rebel 2A Lockers.

American Rebel Will Introduce Two New Product Lines in their Exhibit Booth #1630

Nashville, TN, May 19, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- American Rebel Americas Patriotic Brand (NASDAQ: AREB) (NASDAQ: AREBW) will exhibit at the NRA Annual Meetings and Exhibits May 27 29 in Houston, TX, at the George R. Brown Convention Center.

We are very excited to be back attending trade shows and in front of our fellow patriots, customers and fans, said American Rebel CEO Andy Ross. The NRA Annual Meetings and Exhibits is one of the best consumer shows and biggest audiences of the year. It is the perfect place to introduce new products and get in front of a big crowd.

American Rebel (AREB) will be displaying its current line of Defender safes as well as its concealed carry line of products. AREB will also introduce two new product offerings, the American Rebel Freedom safe line and the American Rebel 2A Lockers.

The American Rebel Freedom safe line will offer our customers American Rebel attitude at an unbelievable price. The Freedom line up also features a new rugged, tough finish, said Ross. American Rebel 2A Lockers allow our customers to keep all things 2A (Second Amendment) behind lock and key and feature our proprietary five-point locking mechanism. We believe these two new product offerings are game changers for our target market and American Rebel.

American Rebels exhibit space number is 1630 and attendees are encouraged to drop in and see the entire line of products, including the 2nd Amendment Muscle Car, the Corvette built for American Rebel CEO Andy Ross by Danny the Count Koker on the History Channel hit television show Counting Cars. American Rebel will be burning patriotic fuel at the NRA Annual Meetings and Exhibits, said Ross. We look forward to seeing many of our customers, followers, fans and stockholders.

About the NRA Annual Meeting

The 151st NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibits will be open all three days and will showcase over 14 acres, 650,000 square feet of exhibit space, of the latest guns and gear from the most popular companies in the industry. Attendees can spend the day exploring products from every major firearm company in the country. Also on display will be an array of knives, wildlife art, shooting accessories, hunting gear, ATVs, and much more.

Story continues

The NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibits is open to all NRA members and their immediate families (spouse and children under 18 years old) and is FREE to attend. If you are not currently a member of the NRA, you can attend by joining at the door or right now at http://www.nra.org. For more information on the NRA Annual Meetings and Exhibits go to http://www.nraam.org.

About American Rebel Holdings, Inc.American Rebel operates primarily as a designer and marketer of branded safes and personal security and self-defense products. The Company also designs and produces branded apparel and accessories. To learn more, visit http://www.americanrebel.com. For investor information, visit http://www.americanrebel.com/investor-relations.

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements:

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. American Rebel Holdings, Inc., (NASDAQ:AREB)(NASDAQ:AREBW) (the Company, "American Rebel, we, our or us) desires to take advantage of the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and is including this cautionary statement in connection with this safe harbor legislation. The words "forecasts" "believe," "may," "estimate," "continue," "anticipate," "intend," "should," "plan," "could," "target," "potential," "is likely," "expect" and similar expressions, as they relate to us, are intended to identify forward-looking statements. We have based these forward-looking statements primarily on our current expectations and projections about future events and financial trends that we believe may affect our financial condition, results of operations, business strategy, and financial needs. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ from those in the forward-looking statements include our current reliance on a sole manufacturer and supplier for the production of our safes, our manufacturing partners ability to meet production demands, our ability to expand our sales organization to address existing and new markets that we intend to target, our ability to effectively compete in a competitive industry, and the Risk Factors contained within our filings with the SEC, including our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021. Any forward-looking statement made by us herein speaks only as of the date on which it is made. Factors or events that could cause our actual results to differ may emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for us to predict all of them. We undertake no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise, except as may be required by law.

Company Contact:

Charles A. Ross, Jr.CEOAmerican Rebel Holdings, Inc.info@americanrebel.com

SOURCE:American Rebel Holdings, Inc.

Attachment

Excerpt from:
American Rebel to Exhibit at the 151st NRA Annual Meetings and Exhibits May 27 29 in Houston, TX - Yahoo Finance

The Second Amendment 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.

Most people think that this amendment was included in the Constitution to protect the right to bear arms (i.e., firearms). However, when I read Carol Andersons interesting, well-written, and very well documented book The Second, it became clear to me that this was not really the case at all.

The Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to assure the Southern states that they would be able to continue to have militias in order to put down slave revolts and to hunt down runaway slaves.

James Madison needed to keep the Southern states in the Union and on board for ratification of the Constitution. That required acquiescence to safeguarding their ability to continue slavery. The amendments to the Constitution that make up the Bill of Rights are about individual rights; therefore, the right to have a militia could not be included there. However, a militia needed armed men, and thus, the individual right to bear arms was a means to put the right to a militia in the Constitution and keep the Southern states in the Union.

Another aspect of the Second Amendment speaks about the right of the people to bear arms. People when the Constitution was drafted meant white male citizens. Black people, enslaved or free, were not considered citizens. Immediately after the ratification of the Constitution, all states but one (Vermont) passed laws prohibiting Black people from owning and using guns, presumably to make absolutely sure that the right to bear arms was a white right, not a universal right.

Thus, the Second Amendment assured white supremacy. Anderson shows clearly in her book that, to the present day, Black individuals who legally carry a gun are treated differently from white gun carriers by law enforcement, and this not infrequently leads to the killing of African Americans who were legally carrying a gun.

The U.S. Supreme Court ignored the militia part of the one-sentence Second Amendment in the Heller vs. District of Columbia decision in 2008 when it ruled, 5 to 4, that The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. This was essentially reaffirmed in the McDonald vs. Chicago decision of the Supreme Court in 2010 (also 5 to 4). There have been no state militias in the U.S. since the National Guard was established as replacement by the Militia Act of 1903.

The consequences of the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court rulings have been devastating. Gun ownership has skyrocketed in the U.S., contributing to the significant recent rise in gun homicides and injuries, as well as to suicides by guns, gun accidents, and use of deadly force by law enforcement who are afraid of people they deal with having a gun, legally or not.

The wording of the Second Amendment does not support the notion that the intent of the original framers was to guarantee in the Constitution an individuals right to own and use guns for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Rather, as pointed out in Andersons book, the right to bear firearms was connected to the need of the Southern states to have armed militias, consisting of white men to keep Black slaves in their place.

More mass shootings have occurred while I was writing this: 10 dead and 3 wounded in Buffalo in what appears to have been a white supremacist, anti-Black act of gun violence. And in Milwaukee at least 17 people were injured in a shooting where police recovered no less than 10 guns at the scene (likely handguns).

Why are we waiting to ban all semiautomatic rifles and all handguns outside ones home for which there is no traditionally lawful purpose. Self-defense in the home, if one sees a need for that, can be accomplished with a handgun provided that it is safely stored and fitted with a trigger-lock and has a limited magazine capacity.

And there is no place in the U.S. for ghost guns that circumvent any sort of regulation, such as universal background checks, age limits, red flag laws, stolen-gun reporting requirements, and so on.

How many more people have to die in the U.S. because of the lack of common-sense gun regulation and our misinterpretation of the Second Amendment?

Maarten Bosland, a former Oak Park resident, is a member of Gun Responsibility Advocates.

Read more:
The Second Amendment revisited - Wednesday Journal

(WHTM) With one day left to make their final pitch to voters ahead of the May 17 primary general election, candidates made their way out across the state, including United States Senate candidate Carla Sands who attended a gun-rights rally.

Every day is a day for the second amendment, Sands said. Including, Sands says, the Monday after a weekend of mass shootings, including one in Buffalo, New York.

None of these tragedies trump our Second Amendment rights. We hold this right dear, along with all of our constitutional freedom, our constitutional rights, Sands said. She says the gun wasnt the problem.

The family knew, the community knew. They should have stepped in and a mental health expert should have helped and intervened in this situation, Sands said.

Democratic State Senate Leader Jay Costa says he is astonished. And to think that a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate is going to talk about gun rights on Monday, today, after the weekend after is astonishing and just simply irresponsible.

Costa says that the conversation should be focused elsewhere.

We should be talking about gun reform measures. We should be talking about the hate crimes that have spewed some of this stuff thats taken place. Thats what we should be talking about and having rallies around those types of things, Costa said.

Costas district in Pittsburg includes the Tree of Life Synagogue, which was the scene of another hate-related mass murder. And every time it happens, they have to relive it, Costa said. And its just frustrating that were going to be out there today in Mechanicsburg talking about promoting more guns.

A supporter of gun rights, and of Sands,s says times like this are exactly when you need to know which politicians support gun rights. Anthony Terrace remembers his days in the United States Air Force.

You could have a gun strapped to you. So just like I do here, and I think its not necessary in a way. But I think everybody should still have that right to carry their arms, Terrace said.

Sands is one of even Republican candidates for U.S. Senate, all strong supporters of gun rights. All four Democratic Senate candidates support more gun control, to varying degrees.

The primary election is on Tuesday, May 17. To see who is running for Pennsylvanias open U.S. Senate seat, click here.

See original here:
Astonishing or every day is a day for the second amendment? Sides spar over gun-rights rally - ABC27

In the coming days or months, the Supreme Court will rule on one of the most important gun cases in the high courts history. The case addresses whether gun owners have a constitutional right to carry their arms outside their homes and, if so, whether restrictive concealed carry licensing laws violate the Second Amendment. Law professor and Brennan Center Fellow Eric Ruben discusses the case and its implications.

Ruben: Brueninvolves a New York State law limiting who can carry a concealed handgun in public. For more than a century, New Yorkers wanting a license to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense have needed to show that they have what the law calls proper cause basically a greater need for self-protection than others in the community. A judge determined that the plaintiffs inBruendid not satisfy that standard. They both received concealed carry licenses, but they were restricted in terms of where they could carry their handguns. For example, one plaintiff wasissued a licenseto carry a concealed handgun while traveling to and from work, and both plaintiffs licenses permitted them to carry concealed handguns for hunting, target practice, and in certain areas not frequented by the general public.

Along with the National Rifle Associations New York affiliate, the plaintiffs sued, contending that the limitations placed on their licenses violate the Second Amendment. They argue that the Second Amendment protects their right to carry a handgun virtuallywhenever and whereverthe need for self-defense might arise.

For more analysis on gun rights and regulations, check out the Brennan Centers Protests, Insurrection, and the Second Amendment series.

Ruben: InHeller, a bare majority of the justices struck down Washington, D.C.s ban on handguns in the home. The Supreme Court held, for the first time in over 200years, that the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to keep and bear arms centered, not around a well regulated Militia, but rather, around the inherent right of self-defense.

Hellerwas a landmark case, constitutionalizing a vast policy area the regulation of weapons. That said, the law at issue was an outlier because only two major cities in the country, DC and Chicago, had such a handgun ban.

The law challenged inBruen, in contrast, affectsa lotmore people than the handgun ban at issue inHeller. New York isone of eight heavily populated statesrequiring that people seeking to carry a concealed handgun have a heightened need to do so. If the high court strikes down New Yorks law, it will have immediate implications in these states home to roughly one-quarter of Americans.

Moreover, the impact on people in these states arguably will be more significant than the impact ofHelleron people living in DC and Chicago.Hellerruled on the right to have a gun in ones own home. If the Supreme Court rules that proper-cause laws are unconstitutional, residents of these eight states can expect to interact with more people armed with a deadly weapon. Gun rights advocatessaythat is a good thing for society that an armed society is a polite society but others, including the weight of scholarship,suggestotherwise.

Ruben: Of course, Ill be watching for the ruling on proper-cause permitting laws. The Supreme Court could uphold New Yorks law, but after oral arguments many court watchersthinkthat is unlikely. The Court could also strike down the challenged aspect of the law, the proper cause requirement, which would keep in place licensing, but remove most of its teeth. Another possibility is a middle-ground ruling. For example, at oral argument, the plaintiffs attorney said that his clients had no intention of going into New York City with their handguns. The justices could use that concession to limit their ruling to non-urban places.

Another thing Ill watch for is whether the Court uses this opportunity toannouncenew Second Amendment doctrine, such as a judicial test deeming modern gun violence irrelevant and history and tradition paramount. That would be highly consequential because it would affect the Second Amendment analysis ofallchallenged weapons laws, not just proper-cause restrictions.

AfterHeller, the lower courts have decided over 1,000Second Amendment cases about everything from felon-in-possession prohibitions to assault-weapon bans. In doing so, they have applied a conventional approach that considers, among other things, modern public safety concerns. If a majority of the justices decide that Second Amendment cases should be resolved solely on the basis of text and history, not modern safety, we can expect a new round of litigation challenging laws previously upheld under the conventional approach.

Ruben: The second-class right trope has become increasingly common in some circles and may feature in the Courts opinions. In a recent study, Joseph Blocher and I foundno strong empirical supportfor the allegation of widespread mistreatment of gun rights in the courts. Among other things, the success rate of Second Amendment claims isconsistent with that in other constitutional contexts.

But the contention of second-class treatment, which has anunmistakably partisan cast in court opinions, could nonetheless have a profound impact. If a majority of the justices come to accept the second-class claim, that could rationalize a decision to bolster judicial scrutiny of gun laws and further limit the ability of governments to regulate in this area.

Ruben: Policymakers will probably adapt to the changed circumstances and seek out alternative routes for regulation. I have a forthcomingessayin the Harvard Law Review Forum about how criminal laws governing gunuse, as opposed to guncarrying, provide incentives and disincentives for public carry through mechanisms like sentence enhancements, self-defense elements, burdens of proof, and legal inferences. If the Supreme Court strikes down New Yorks proper cause requirement, one avenue for regulation might be blocked, but that would merely redirect policymakers down other avenues.

Go here to read the rest:
A Right to Conceal and Carry? - brennancenter.org