Category Archives: Second Amendment

Dear Editor:

Why did our Founders add the right to bear arms to our Bill of Rights? It was because some felt that without this guarantee, the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.

So New York state, under the leadership of liberal elected officials, has shackled its citizens with gun-control legislation. What is the reason? is New York state leading the way for state control of constitutional rights? Given the control of the state by Democratic, liberal elected and appointed officials and the new changes in our judicial bail system, one can only wonder: Are we heading toward a state government that will try to eliminate our freedom?

The U.S Supreme Court, in its 2008 ruling inDistrict of Columbia v. Heller, held that the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense, within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the nation, but to states and municipalities.

The court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nations scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and the court, in the Heller ruling, held that individual self-defense was the central component of the Second Amendment right.

Protect your rights.

Joseph Izzo

Catskill, N.Y.

Original post:
LETTER: NY state law defies Second Amendment and right to bear arms - The Daily Freeman

Had 22,000 people showed up in Richmond, Virginia, to demand stronger gun control laws, it is a safe bet that proponents of them would pronounced the crowd to be conclusive proof most Americans want such restrictions.

But when a group estimated at that size demonstrated on Monday against new firearms ownership limits, some gun control advocates insisted the crowd was small and evidence not many people worry about Second Amendment rights.

I was prepared to see a whole lot more people show up than actually did, and I think its an indication that a lot of this rhetoric is bluster, quite frankly, commented state Delegate Chris Hurst, a Democrat representing an area in western Virginia. In fairness to Hurst, it needs to be noted he has a personal stake in gun control; in 2015, his television journalist girlfriend was killed in shooting.

More than bluster was on display Monday in Richmond, however. As The Associated Press noted, those who turned out to protest what they view as infringements upon Second Amendment rights did so in spite of very cold weather. They came from throughout Virginia, as well as some other states.

Prior to the rally, state officials including Gov. Ralph Northam had expressed concern about white supremacists attending the event. Members of some such groups did attend, according to observers but the rally passed peacefully. There was just one arrest, of a woman who broke a state law by wearing a mask that covered her face.

What happened Monday in Richmond was a demonstration that many law-abiding citizens representing millions of other like-minded Americans are concerned about politicians who continue assaulting the Second Amendment. Officials in the Old Dominion, as well as elsewhere, shoud take note of that.

Puerto Rican Gov. Wanda Vasquez is fighting back against the corruption and inefficiency that has hindered efforts ...

Many Americans became heroes on Dec. 7, 1941, during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. One of them, a Navy mess ...

Today, Monday, Jan. 20, is Martin Luther King Jr. Day, a day to celebrate Kings birthday and honor his legacy ...

"Give me your lunch money or Ill beat you up, says the school yard bully. So do Iranian leaders, this ...

If you doubt that too many Americans have become preoccupied with President Donald Trump, either favorably or ...

With the ball in the U.S. Senates court regarding an impeachment trial for President Donald Trump, a rather ...

Read this article:
Fighting off assaults on Second Amendment | News, Sports, Jobs - Minot Daily News

IONIA A resolution to make Ionia County a Second Amendment sanctuary was tabled Tuesday after discussion with the county prosecutor and sheriff.

The Ionia County Board of Commissioners at its Jan. 21 meeting had an agenda item for a resolution making the county a Second Amendment sanctuary. Last week, resident Randy Schmid approached the board last week proposing the resolution after bills regulating gun control were introduced by the Democratic majority in the Virginia legislature leading to counties declaring themselves as "sanctuaries" that support the right to bear arms.

Ionia County District One Commissioner and Chair David Hodges invited Prosecutor Kyle Butler and Sheriff Charlie Noll to speak before the board took action. Their titles are mentioned in the proposed resolution.

Butler indicated he supports the Second Amendment and is a gun owner, but said I need to put my legal hat on. He said he and Noll have taken oaths to uphold the Constitution, but that the Constitution is not an exact science and that he wasnt sure it was time to go forward with the resolution.

It doesnt feel like theres been a vetting process of this resolution, Butler said.

Butler encouraged the board to speak with him, Noll and the county attorney before moving forward with a decision. Noll said he supports the right to bear arms but also agreed with Butler.

Butler thinks there needs to be more thought that goes into it before a vote is made.

It just strikes me as shocking that, frankly, the sheriff and I havent been consulted about this and I dont believe the county lawyer really hasnt been necessarily consulting about this much either, Butler said. Thats surprising to me.

Butler also said he and Noll are elected officials and the county board doesnt have control over decisions beside budgets.

This resolution almost seems to blur that separate distinct bodies, Butler said.

Were elected, were independent and were going to uphold the Constitution as were supposed to do, Noll said.

District Five Commissioner Scott Wirtz said he was OK with Butler and Noll speaking with their peers in other counties and send the resolution back to the county attorney.

Lynn Mason of the Ionia County Democratic Party spoke during public comment opposing the resolution, saying there needs to be a public hearing. Deb Smith, the concealed pistol license clerk from Ionia County, called the resolution pretty vague."

Scott Parmalee, a District Seven resident, is the chairperson for Michigan for Second Amendment sanctuary counties group. It started as a Facebook group and has accumulated more 73,000 members since Christmas 2019 for the Second Amendment.

As a group we see the Second Amendment is under attack across the country, Parmalee said.

During the second public comment, Parmalee said the resolution was not supposed to be a binding document that holds weight over state or federal law. He said the goal is for Michigan to not become Virginia especially in light of the upcoming 2020 election.

Contact reporter Evan Sasiela at esasiela@sentinel-standard.com. Follow him on Twitter @SalsaEvan.

More:
Prosecutor, sheriff concerned over Second Amendment sanctuary resolution - Sentinel-Standard

Gaston County could soon be added to a growing list of local governments vowing to oppose gun control efforts they view as unconstitutional.

Tracy Philbeck, chairman of the Gaston County Board of Commissioners, said he's sponsoring a resolution with Commissioners Chad Brown and Allen Fraley to designate Gaston County a "Second Amendment sanctuary."

It's a move to publicly protect a county residents right to keep and bear arms, supporters say. Commissioners will vote Jan. 28.

"As of right now you can say it's largely symbolic," Philbeck said. "Don't underestimate, though, if we have to we will act. As long as I'm chairman of the commission I will not support any law or ordinance that goes against the constitutional right of folks to bear arms."

The resolution states support for the Second Amendment and, "to oppose, within the limits of the Constitutions of the United States and the State of North Carolina, any efforts to unconstitutionally restrict such rights..."

Resolutions have been approved by counties across the country, including most recently in Lincoln County.

Philbeck and Chad Brown called the move a precautionary measure made necessary by the passage of new gun measures in states like Virginia and Colorado.

"I'm proud to be a sponsor on this," Chad Brown said. "Our constitution has been chipped away at by the liberal left and this is simply us saying we don't want anymore slices taken from the constitution."

Point of view matters

Duke University Law Professor Darrell Miller writes and teaches in the area of civil right and constitutional law, with emphasis on the Second and Thirteenth Amendments.

He's also written extensively about District of Columbia V. Heller, a landmark Supreme Court decision in 2008 that views the Second Amendment as protecting an individuals right to own firearms for lawful purposes like self-defense within the home.

He wrote last summer that Second Amendment sanctuary efforts in Colorado - that largely opposed so-called "red flag" laws that could allow law enforcement or families to petition courts to remove firearms from those who could be a danger to themselves or others - could be regarded as efforts to "mobilize citizens in an act of constitution-making outside of the courts," particularly in cases where courts have yet to rule on the laws in question.

In response to questions last week, Miller said the Second Amendment sanctuary movement, at its core, is an effort by local governments to use constitutional framing of their enactments to affect policy and law.

"Given there's no gun violence prevention proposals with any realistic chance of making it through the current General Assembly in N.C., it seems the immediate effect of this effort in N.C. would be to show solidarity with gun-rights activists in Virginia and elsewhere, and to act as an announcement of non-compliance if there's a change of control in Raleigh," Miller wrote.

Greg Wallace, a professor of law at Campbell University School of Law, said the Second Amendment sanctuary movement could be indicative of conflict between state and federal obligations.

"I think firearms owners see very extreme measures being proposed by gun control proponents that really aren't aimed at just the criminal misuse of guns but aimed much more broadly," Wallace said.

He said state and county officials must uphold state law, duties that could clash with constitutional obligations.

"There has been a long history of government officials, particularly in the executive branch, saying 'OK if the state legislature has passed a law that we believe in good faith is unconstitutional, we don't have an obligation to enforce it," Wallace said. "That comes in part from the oaths these officers take to support the constitution first. There's a long tradition of civil resistance."

Wallace said such efforts could leave officials open to legal action, including lawsuits and potential removal from office.

"There is a risk in it for them," Wallace said. "But the flip side, if so many communities sign on to this what's the enforcement mechanism the state is going to use? That's an open question."

Commissioners, including Bob Hovis, Tom Keigher, Jack Brown and Ronnie Worley voiced support for the Second Amendment sanctuary measure.

Gaston County Democratic Party Chairman Daniel Caudill and Democratic Party county commission candidate Ray Raynor, view the measure as unnecessary.

"I see the symbolism they're going for," according to Caudill, a U.S. Army veteran and gun owner. "We're scratching our heads knowing that sanctuary ordinances don't supersede state or federal law. I think there's more effective things they could be working on for the county."

Gaston County District Attorney Locke Bell said he would neither support nor oppose the resolution, citing the constitution as protection enough.

"I'm a firm believer in the Second Amendment and I own numerous firearms," Bell said. "I'm not sure this movement by the commissioners is needed. We already have the Second Amendment protecting us here in Gaston County and I think that is sufficient."

Reach Adam Orr at 704-869-1828 or aorr@gastongazette.com

See the rest here:
Gaston Commissioners to vote on Second Amendment sanctuary proposal - Gaston Gazette

I attended the pro-Second Amendment rally this week in Richmond, Virginia. My hotel is approximately six blocks from where the event transpired, so it was an easy walk.

On the walk from my hotel to the event, I fell in with many other attendees. Vendors were manifold, and some were journeyman classicists: Gadsden flags, and paraphernalia adorned with the Gadsden snake and motto, barely outpaced Molon Labe and Sic Semper Tyrannis adornments to the naked eye. Many vendors entrepreneurially hawked Donald Trump and MAGA wares; however, regardless of the product, I did not see much business transacted.

The crowd thickened well before the security perimeter to get into the event. At one point, my progress came to a halt before I realized that I was in the gaggle of lines to access the Porto-O-Potties. The area wide around the Capitol grounds was, to borrow from the immortal Waylon Jennings, filled up with law. The barricades, police cruisers, and vans forced the crowds into very tight siphoning toward the formal event; however, no signage directed attendees to anything at all, much less the location of the event.

Carry, whether concealed or open, was not allowed inside the fenced perimeter. That did not stop numerous persons from carrying openly outside the perimeter. I saw one individual sporting a 1911 in a thigh rig, but the overwhelming carry of choice was the standard AR-15. Of note, because I do not suspect this will be reported: A strong number of the folks carrying ARs also had medical or first aid kits on their persons. These were not individuals anticipating offensive action; these individuals were prepared to help.

Ive never been through security like what I went through then, and that includes international travel. The logjam to get in was considerable due to the thoroughness of the security searches. I asked the special agent in my line if I needed to remove everything from my pockets, or just metallic items. He responded that everything needed to be removed.

I smiled as I pulled out, amongst other things, two granola bars: Dont confiscate my lunch, officer. He chuckled and said that granola bars just got added to the prohibited items list.

After removing jacket and pocketed items, I walked through a scanner and was still wanded completely by another Virginia State Police officer. I quipped that nobody got a day off today. He looked at me, and this is my impression, with exasperation: Not a single person in our entire force has today off.

The Virginia State Police were cordial, professional, patient, and even frequently friendly. I chatted with a number of them and saw others engage them even more. After the event, attendees shook hands, patted shoulders, and touched elbows of VSP officers and thanked them for being there. That wasnt occasional; a vast number of attendees did so.

The officers I witnessed returned thanks and stated that attendees made their jobs easy. They are, of course, correct.

The crowd inside was diverse, cheerful, raucous, and behaved. Signage abounded, and much of it was clever. Manifold families were present with children, blankets, and foodstuffs. The Virginia Citizens Defense League, which has hosted this event for well nigh 20 years, has a round and hunter orange sticker that reads, Guns Save Lives. Almost every attendee sported one.

At the end of the event, we all picked up after ourselves. I anticipated this activity, so did not take this sticker, or any other, so that the detritus I removed from the grounds would be minimal. Thats my confession. I now look forward to skipping church this week.

Shooters could be observed on the rooftops of the surrounding buildings. Three helicopters hovered.

Several distinct groups could be distinguished. A group from Pennsylvania sported signs that read, Dont VA PA. Harsh, but fair. Texans carried the familiar Come and take it cannon flag. One gaggle carried the An Appeal To Heaven flag. The Pink Pistols, a national LGBT pro-gun group, was present, as was the African-American Black Guns Matter group. An untold number of signs reminded everyone that gun rights are womens rights and that firearms are the great equalizers.

The speakers were as you would expect and almost an afterthought. One made a joke about Jeffrey Epstein not killing himself. One chided those who attended but did not vote last November. One encouraged each attendee to bring 100 persons to the voting booth in November for Trump. The sound system was woeful and the cheers perfunctory. This aspect of the rally has been the meat and potatoes of the past 18 annual gatherings; they were an accessory today.

Leaving the fenced in area was difficult. Two of the entries were closed off, such that the gathering exited through one barricaded siphon. When multiple attendees asked officers why, the officers uniformly replied that they were not sure, as they were not told the rationale behind the change. It was, quite frankly, a disaster waiting to happen and Im grateful it didnt.

I saw no medical personnel until I was three blocks away, not from the fenced perimeter, but from the informal and rough boundaries of the outside gathering. The law enforcement presence was overwhelming but medical provision was inappropriately low.

However large the crowd was, the attendees stayed on message. I saw one anti-abortion flag, one anti-taxation flag, and a fair amount of Trump material. But so many protests, regardless of the stated issue, draw so many differing causes, some of which are conflicting. Not so then. The thousands of persons in attendance were there for one reason.

A group of roughly ten persons made their way inside the perimeter and marched around chanting that the revolution is now and white supremacy will not prevail and a better world can be had without guns. Many attendees took their picture and laughed, but no one engaged. Run a quick mental exercise involving a mass Antifa rally with ten pro-gun persons parading through and imagine the result.

All in all, it was a very good day. A large group of people assembled peaceably to air their grievances and to state that, unless something changes, our consent to be governed is being revoked. Heres hoping that those in the Virginia legislative and executive branches listen.

Todd Hester isa freelance writer and retired Presbyterian minister living in Southwest Virginia. He's been happily married for 25 years to an emergency medicine physician. They have two grown daughters.

Link:
What I Saw At The Richmond Second Amendment Rally - The Federalist

As an incorporated provision of the United States Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment is the supreme law of the land, applying to all U.S. jurisdictions and to the actions of federal, state, and local officials. The U.S. Supreme Court provides the final and authoritative interpretation of that provision, as well as other provisions of the U.S. Constitution. All of this is elementary civics.

But the State of California believes it knows better, requiring publisher McGraw-Hill to annotate a discussion of the Bill of Rights in a popular social studies textbook with the states own peculiar view of the Second Amendments meaning.

According to pictures from the California edition in the New York Times, the annotation states:

Right to Bear Arms This amendment is often debated. Originally it was intended to prevent the national government from repeating the actions of the British, who tried to take weapons away from the colonial militia, or armed forces of the citizens. This amendment seems to support the right of citizens to own firearms, but the Supreme Court has ruled it does not prevent Congress from regulating the interstate sale of weapons.

The Times article goes on to state that the publisher said it had created the additional wording on the Second Amendment and gun control for the California textbook. The same language, however, does not appear in a national version of the same section, according to the Times report.

The point of the New York Times article is to suggest that different states emphasize different aspects of U.S. history in otherwise similar textbooks, depending on the prevailing political outlook among the states education officials.

Whatever might be said of that approach, the problem with Californias account of the Second Amendment isnt just one of emphasis but of accuracy. California, which prides itself on being one of the most anti-gun states in the nation, simply gets it wrong, using language that falsely portrays the Second Amendment as a debated provision that has changed meaning over time and that only seems to protect an individual right.

Any debate about the Second Amendments protection of an individual right have been authoritatively settled by the U.S. Supreme Court: The Second Amendment protects the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation, independent of service in an organized militia. That fact was unambiguously articulated in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008.

That decision, moreover, was based on the public understanding of the Second Amendment at the time it was ratified. In other words, not only was the Second Amendment an individual right as of 2008, it has always been an individual right. As the Supreme Court noted, virtually all interpreters of the Second Amendment in the century after its enactment interpreted the Amendment as we do. It is false to suggest, as the California textbook does, that it originally meant something different and then somehow changed meaning in 2008.

Regarding the prefatory militia clause, the Supreme Court took pains to explain the difference between the justification for including the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights and the scope and substance of that right.

The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution, the court wrote. What justified its codification was the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens' militia by taking away their arms . But, the court noted, the prefatory militia clause announcing the reason for the rights codification does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.

That scope, meanwhile, included using arms for self-defense and hunting, with self-defense being the central component of the right itself, according to the Supreme Court.

The California textbook also misconstrues what the term militia meant to the founding generation at the time of the Second Amendments enactment. It wasnt just a discrete, organized military force, the court explained, but members of the population physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense, whether they were mustered in that capacity or not. Thus, the terms militia and the people are not at odds with each other in the Second Amendment. The people, with their own arms, are the basis of the militia. To protect the peoples private right to arms is therefore to protect the militias ability to muster with arms and to preserve its viability.

As for Congress ability to regulate the interstate sale of weapons, the Supreme Court indicated in Heller that laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms are part of the longstanding history and tradition of the Second Amendment, and are thus presumptively lawful. That does not mean, however, that every such law trumps the amendments protections, especially if there is no longstanding precedent for it.

In any event, the Supreme Court has yet to hear a case that pits the Second Amendment against the Commerce Clause, and it explicitly reserved that and other questions for later consideration. [S]ince this case represents this Courts first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field, the court wrote. [T]here will be time enough to expound upon the historical justifications for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those exceptions come before us.

California likes to emphasize how it sees things differently than the rest of the United States. Thats why common consumer products come with warnings that they include substances known to the State of California to pose various hazards, including cancer or birth defects. So numerous are these warnings that people at this point are most likely to ignore them as sensational and unreliable.

The states students would be wise to take the same approach to official state pronouncements about firearms and the Second Amendment.

California, as the saying goes, is entitled to its opinions. But its not entitled to its own facts.

And when it comes to the Second Amendment, the facts are different than the opinions expressed in the California-specific version of McGraw-Hills social studies textbook.

Activist Wilma Mankiller is quoted as saying, Whoever controls the education of our children controls our future.

Year after year California chips away at the Second Amendment with its ever-expanding gun control regime.

If this continues unabated, the right to keep and bear arms will effectively be nullified for future generations of Californians.

Whats worse if Californias educational bureaucrats have their way is that those generations will be too ignorant of their liberties to even understand what has been taken from them.

Our advice to these students is to exercise their First Amendment rights to learn and speak the truth, and as soon as they are able, exercise the right to vote in favor of those who respect their fundamental liberties, rather than those who try to write them out of history.

See the original post:
State of Ignorance: California Pushes False Information to School Kids on the Second Amendment - NRA ILA

Two gun rights groups planning to host a rally of 130,000 supporters Monday at the Virginia state Capitol have sued to repeal Democratic Gov. Ralph Northams ban on guns, even for those with permits.

Governor Northam is behaving like the royal governors who long preceded him. He has arrogantly and brazenly tried to restrict the rights protected to Virginians by the First and Second Amendments, said Erich Pratt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America.

His group is joining the other rally organizer, Virginia Citizens Defense League, in pushing to win back gun rights on Capitol grounds for the Monday lobby day when members planned to press lawmakers to reject a wave of gun control legislation sailing through the Senate.

Gun Owners of America is joining VCDL in asking the courts to issue an emergency injunction forbidding the enforcement of the governors unlawful ban. The Lobby Day rally is held annually with thousands of participants and without incident. The only difference this year is that, in response to the Democrats attempt to eviscerate the Second Amendment, a much larger crowd is expected, said Pratt.

GOA is arguing that the governors actions violate the Virginia and U.S. Constitutions, as well as, a 2012 state law which strictly limits the governors ability to ban guns in a state of emergency, he added.

Earlier in the day, VCDL ripped the governors emergency decree and suggested that Democrats were hoping for violence at the rally so they could smear gun owners.

In that alert to some 38,000 supporters, VCDL said:

VCDL believes that this gun ban is illegal. Our legal team is looking at our options and we will keep you advised as soon as we have a definitive plan. As it stands now, you can carry on 9th Street, or other nearby streets, as long as you don't go into the fenced-in Capitol grounds area (or into any of the government buildings). There will be 17 magnetometers to speed up security for those wishing to be on the Capitol grounds, which puts you near the stage. You CAN have a knife with a blade LESS THAN 3 inches. Again, wait for final word on the Capitol grounds gun-ban situation over the weekend.

[Read more: Trump could be big beneficiary' in Virginia gun control battle, urged to get involved]

Read more:
Virginia sued over Second Amendment rally gun ban - Washington Examiner

Once again, the radical left has taken things too far. Recently, the Virginia legislature voted to put unconstitutional restrictions on law abiding citizens regarding the right to bear arms. These new laws go directly against the Second Amendment, which unequivocally guarantees this right.

Dont be fooled: while the fight today is in Virginia, that doesnt mean our Second Amendment rights are safe here. Any attempt to restrict the Second Amendment will have consequences across the country. If we let the radical Left get away with this, they will try this at the federal level next.

The Constitution couldnt be clearer when it comes to the Second Amendment: the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. There are no qualifiers or restrictions in that statement. The Second Amendment is straightforward and crystal clear.

This is about more than just the rights of gun owners. This is about defending the Constitution against attacks from those who wish to rewrite our laws, destroy our values and fundamentally transform our country.

Our Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they were able to see the steps that Virginias Democrat politicians have taken to restrict freedom. Now more than ever, freedom loving Americans across the nation have to remain vigilant and push back against policies that threaten our God-given, inalienable rights.

The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that our rights come from God, our creator. The government was intended to protect the rights that were gifted from God, not place restrictions on our rights.

As a gun owner myself, I have always fought to protect the Second Amendment. I have consistently voted for concealed carry reciprocity, to make sure that Americans are able to carry their firearm across state lines. Ive voted to protect the right to carry on federal lands, which is incredibly important for hunters and outdoorsmen. Ive also strongly advocated to end restrictions against carrying a gun on military bases. It is ridiculous to think that American service members trained in the defense of their nation cannot defend themselves on their own bases.

Last year, I led some of my conservative colleagues in supporting the Second Amendment during a major Supreme Court case against the City of New York. The liberals in New York City passed grossly overreaching and unconstitutional ordinances infringing on the Second Amendment. It is crucial we continue confirming conservative judges so that we have justices on the bench that will honor their oath and protect the Second Amendment in times like this when are rights are under attack.

It is saddening to see that now, in 2020, the tyranny our forefathers fought against with blood, sweat and tears is returning. Let us be honest with the American people: gun control is not about safety. It is about power. Radical Democratic politicians are attempting to strip power away from the everyday American before our very eyes.

With their latest political games, the radical left is not just attacking gun owners. They are again trying to tear our Constitution and our country apart by growing government and putting more restrictions on law abiding Americans.

It is more important now than ever before that Alabama has a senator who will fight back against the radical left and who will always stand up for the Second Amendment. Thats why Im running for the Senate: to defend the Constitution and protect our Second Amendment rights.

U.S. Rep. Bradley Byrne is a Republican from Fairhope. He is a 2020 candidate for the U.S. Senate.

See the article here:
Byrne: More important than ever to fight for the Second Amendment - Yellowhammer News

When one of the Pennsylvania Legislatures most conservative members announced her desire to pass Second Amendment Sanctuary ordinances that defy state and federal gun laws, the temptation at first was to laugh and shake your head in disbelief.

In barely a year in the state House, Rep. Stephanie Borowicz, a Republican who hails from rural Clinton County, has proven to be anything but shy when it comes to courting controversy. So when Borowicz dropped her press release on Second Amendment Sanctuaries, it barely registered as a ripple on Twitter.

But as The Trace, a site that tracks gun violence-reduction efforts reports, theres plenty of reason to pay attention. Thats because Borowicz has quietly inserted herself into a movement that stretches across more than 400 municipalities in 20 states.

If the term Second Amendment Sanctuary, sounds familiar, theres a reason for that. As The Trace reports, backers purposefully modeled them on so-called Sanctuary Cities, where local officials decline to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

Were just stealing the language that sanctuary cities use, Bryan Kibler, the states attorney in Effingham County, Illinois, told the Associated Press in 2018, according to The Trace.

The county approved its own gun sanctuary in April 2018, according to published reports, saying gun laws then under consideration by the Illinois General Assembly were unconstitutionally broad.

As The Daily Item of Sunbury, Pa., reported earlier this month, the state branch of a group called Gun Owners of America has volunteers working statewide on such ordinances. Officials in Bradford County, along the New York State border enacted such a resolution last December. Another northeastern Pennsylvania municipality is reportedly considering its own resolution.

In her statement, Borowicz said she was expressing my complete support for efforts in two counties in her district to protect law-abiding residents against unconstitutional gun control laws imposed in Harrisburg or Washington, D.C.

Among those measures are a proposed red flag law now before the Legislature that would allow police, acting on a court-order, to temporarily seize someones weapons if they believe they pose an immediate threat to themselves or to public safety.

These extreme risk protection order laws, as theyre formally known have been shown in other states to have reduced gun crimes and suicide.

While legal experts and others believe Second Amendment Sanctuaries are mostly symbolic and not legally binding, others say that they could lead to expensive litigation for local governments that decline to enforce state and federal gun laws.

To the extent that police chiefs and especially prosecutors view these actions by local governments as reflections of widespread community sentiment, they may feel more comfortable in adjusting their own exercise of discretion in making arrests and in charging decisions, George Mason University law professor Nelson Lund told The Daily Item. At least in that sense, it is probably not accurate to characterize them as mere publicity stunts.

Ultimately, the final battle over these local ordinances will be waged in the courts.

The proper procedure if law enforcement officers and local governments have issue with new laws is to bring legal action in the courts, and have courts determine whether those laws are constitutional, Jonathan Lowy, the vice president of the legal action project at the gun reform group Brady, told The Trace.

There is no small irony here that the very legislators and officials pursuing these sanctuary protections are those who kick back the hardest when local officials, tired of federal and state-level inaction on gun violence-reduction issues, move to enact ordinances stronger than those in existing federal law.

Such was the case when officials in Pittsburgh enacted tough local ordinances in the wake of a murderous spree at the Tree of Life Synagogue in 2018 that claimed the lives of 11 people.

Pennsylvania state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, a Republican and outspoken gun-rights activist, called for Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Pedutos impeachment as a result.

Republicans already have an image problem with voters when it comes to gun issues. Theyll have even more explaining to do when a mass shooting erupts in one of their Second Amendment paradises.

An award-winning political journalist, John L. Micek is Editor-in-Chief of The Pennsylvania Capital-Star in Harrisburg and former Opinion Editor and Political Columnist at PennLive/The Patriot-News. Email him at jmicek@penncapital-star.com and follow him on Twitter @ByJohnLMicek.

Originally posted here:
'Second Amendment Sanctuaries' are the Right's new gun push - Uniontown Herald Standard

Posted: Jan 20, 2020 / 06:20 AM EST / Updated: Jan 20, 2020 / 06:22 AM EST

FT. GAY, W.Va. (WOWK) On Friday, January 17, Ft. Gay, West Virginia became the first town in the state to declare itself a sanctuary for the Second Amendment.

Mayor Joetta Hatfield said, The members of the town council are proud to be the first municipality in West Virginia to adopt an ordinance that formally establishes Ft. Gay as a sanctuary against any attempt by legislators or members of Congress to infringe the Second Amendment rights of Ft. Gays citizens.

Mayor Hatfield also said that the council was motivated by the recent fall of the Commonwealth of Virginia, of which West Virginia was once a part, into the hands of those now rushing to strip away the constitutional right to bear arms.

Earlier in the week West Virginias Putnam County became a sanctuary county for the Second Amendment when its county commission voted to pass the measure.

Ft. Gay is located in Wayne County. Allen Whitt, Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, attended the historic vote in Ft. Gay; which is located on the Kentucky border about 20 miles south of Huntington, West Virginia. Whitt said, Tonight was one of the many reasons Im proud to be a West Virginian.

The Ft. Gay council members made a bold statement that will defend their citizens constitutional rights to legally own firearms. Town council members said becoming a sanctuary city will protect against efforts by legislators pushing red flag gun laws.

Im running for the U.S. Senate because our current Senator Shelley Moore Capito says red flag gun laws make sense to her. Well they certainly shouldnt make sense to anyone who has vowed to support the U.S. Constitution, but on May 12th, a vote for Allen Whitt for U.S. Senate will make sense for gun owners and hunters.

Red flag laws strip gun owners from due process if someone calls and raises a red flag of concern about the owner. Their guns could be confiscated with no evidence of wrongdoing based on a fraudulent complaint.

More here:
Ft. Gay, West Virginia becomes first Second Amendment sanctuary town in the state - WVNS-TV