Category Archives: Second Amendment

OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) The self-proclaimed Second Amendment auditor arrested for allegedly bringing an AR-style rifle into a metro restaurant has bonded out of jail.

Timothy Harper

Timothy Harper bonded out of the Oklahoma County Jail at 7:43 p.m. on Friday, according to a jail official.

Harpers jail exit came hours after Oklahoma County Judge Ray Elliott refused to lower Harpers $100,000 bond. However, the judge did lift the requirement that it be a cash bond.

The judge also added stipulations to the bond, including that if Harper bonds out, he wear an ankle monitor and surrender his weapons.

Harper was arrested for allegedly bringing an AR-style rifle into a Twin Peaks restaurant the day after the new permitless carry law went into effect this month.

The police who arrested him said the law prohibiting rifles in businesses that serve alcohol didnt change.

Harpers attorney argued that the $100,000 bond wasnt appropriate for a crime that carries a maximum penalty of two years in prison and a $1.000 fine, and that it isnt necessary to ensure hell show up in court for future hearings.

More here:
Self-proclaimed Second Amendment auditor bonds out of jail after judge refuses bond reduction - KFOR Oklahoma City

Original intent is a term often quoted in Supreme Court rulings. It means what was actually intended at the time that the Constitution was written. The best way to make this determination posthumously is to examine the historical records of society and technology at the time they were written.

In 1787, when the Constitution was written, the majority of the American landmass was under control of Native Americans, slavery was flourishing and the prevailing weapon was the flintlock rifle. Much of the frontier was lawless, and there were frequent clashes between the natives and the people moving onto their lands. According to historical records, there were frequent groups of armed men used to hunt down runaway slaves.

Under these circumstances, it was entirely understandable that there were constitutional protections for militias and gun ownership since the government clearly had a policy of driving the Native Americans from their ancestral lands, the frontier was often lawless and slaves often either rebelled against brutal conditions or attempted an escape to the north or even Canada. Hence the Second Amendment was written and ratified securing the right to hunt down runaway slaves and to force Native Americans from their lands.

In actual practice, the military had the responsibility for driving Native Americans from their lands, and thus the main use of private armed militias was enforcing slavery. These things are well documented in the historical record.

Fast forward to the present, and these conditions have no relevance. Flintlocks have long since been replaced by weapons with lethality far beyond anything imaginable by the writers of the Constitution. Native Americans have long since been driven from their ancestral lands and confined to reservations. Even though the movies have glamorized the posses of cowboys, by far the greatest use of the militia component of the Second Amendment was for the capture of runaway slaves. Slavery has long since been eliminated, and militias have long since been replaced by city, county, state and federal law enforcement agencies. Yet the Second Amendment still stands as the law of the land in clear violation of the original intent doctrine. Not only is it still the law of the land, but it also has been expanded to allow private ownership of weapons of war that have unleashed mayhem within our cities.

Can anyone claim that this was what our founding fathers anticipated?

If a challenge to the Second Amendment were to be taken to the Supreme Court, the outcome would depend upon whether the justices were to own up to the reality that exists today or vote to stick with the president and Senate that put them onto the court. Often the Supreme Court justices bend to their political base rather than the original intent that they claim.

See the rest here:
Original intent and the Second Amendment - Post Register

On a busy Tuesday, three county commissioners courts met and passed resolutions declaring themselves to be Second Amendment sanctuaries.

All passed the measure unanimously.

With the approval of resolutions in Kaufman, Stephens, and Palo Pinto, the number of such sanctuaries in Texas grows to a total of eleven.

The expanding list signals frustration with the increased discussion about stricter firearm regulations and gun control measures, including red flag laws, expanded background checks, and firearm confiscation.

Prior to Tuesday, Edwards, Hudspeth, Presidio, Mitchell, Hood, Parker, Smith, and Ellis counties had passed the pro-Second Amendment resolutions.

Get started today for free and become the most informed Texan you know after your first month, it's just $9.00.

In the resolutions, all counties have said that they will support the county sheriff and will not enforce any unconstitutional firearm restrictions.

As in many of the previous cases, all three sheriffs in the most recent counties to become sanctuaries voiced their support for the measure.

I dont actually get to sign resolutions, said Sheriff Will Holt of Stephens County, but I do want yall the court to know and (to put it) on record with the media and with the folks here that I support this resolution 100 percent.

Sheriff Brett McGuire of Palo Pinto County noted on a social media post how many people have expressed concerns about what certain politicians have spouted off hoping that they could get a sound-bite on the 5 oclock news.

Quite frankly, most of these politicians probably dont know the difference between an AR-15 and a leaf blower (and most of them have never used either one of them), said McGuire. Truth be told, the Sheriffs of Texas are some of your biggest supporters of the 2nd Amendment and the remaining rights afforded to you under the Constitution. You see, we have to be. And none of us would have taken this job if we werent.

The practical consequences of the Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions whether potential unconstitutional firearm restrictions will be protected against if current restrictions are left untouched has been questioned.

Regardless of how effective the resolutions might be in the future, those enacting them and those calling for them see the resolutions as a commitment to their belief in and defense of the constitutionally protected right for an individual to keep and bear arms.

A free bi-weekly commentary on current events by Konni Burton.

Originally posted here:
Kaufman, Palo Pinto, and Stephens Counties Become Second Amendment Sanctuaries - The Texan

Manhattan: Re Warrens Rx, and ours (editorial, Nov. 7): A universal, state-funded health care plan would benefit every New Yorker. Surely the residents of the richest state in the richest nation on Earth can afford the right to health care that residents of every other advanced country already enjoy. As a board member of the Campaign for New York Health, I know that many studies conducted by us and others have shown that the taxes to fund New York Health Act would, in fact, be substantially less than what private insurance premiums, co-pays, and deductibles now cost us, and they would be fairer, based on ability to pay. We should demand that our Legislature take this opportunity to do something wonderful for the residents of this state and make universal, comprehensive, affordable health care available to all of us. Leonard Rodberg, research director, NY Metro Chapter of Physicians for a National Health Program

Read more here:
Readers sound off on New York Health Act, the Second Amendment and the Mets - New York Daily News

Joe Biden raked in campaign cash at two private Seattle fundraisers on Friday, including one at the home of a top Amazon executive, where the former vice president ever-so-gently raised the role the company has played in the loss of some middle-class jobs.

Speaking at the Queen Anne neighborhood home of David Zapolsky, Amazons general counsel, who introduced him as someone who can bring stability, Biden lamented the Democratic Partys failure to speak to working-class constituencies who have grown pessimistic about their economic futures.

Thats due in part, Biden said, to the technological revolution Amazon has helped lead.

Im in the House of Amazon here, Biden said, drawing quiet chuckles from the crowd of a few dozen donors at the $2,800-per-person event.

Seriously, think of the change that is taking place and why people are frightened. Nothing bad youve done good things. But 200,000 salespeople are out of work because people are shopping online now.

Bidens tone was more pleading than scolding, especially compared with the strong anti-corporate stances taken by some of his rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, such as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Biden criticized short-term thinking by corporations, including a focus on quarterly earnings, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars in stock buybacks. Such transactions have been criticized for enriching executives at the expense of job-growing investments.

A lot of it has to do with the notion that we have no obligation to anyone other than our stockholders, Biden said.

At the Zapolsky home, and at an earlier fundraiser at the Madison Park home of local philanthropist Janet Ketcham that drew 105 donors paying $500 or more, Biden said hed seek to close some tax loopholes as part of his plans to offer free community college and free universal preschool.

Without naming names, Biden criticized more sweeping spending plans promoted by his Democratic primary opponents as unrealistic.

A lot of it has to do with leveling with the American people, he said, referring to proposals for Medicare for All, swift elimination of student debt, and providing free four-year college education. Very appealing, he said, but not possible in the near term.

Instead, Biden touted his plans to build on Obamacare and offer a public health insurance option.

Biden spent much of his speeches talking up his experience, saying he needed no on-the-job training. He also restated his assertion mocked by some other Democrats that if President Donald Trump could only be defeated, the Republican Party would change and become willing to compromise on an array of issues, including climate change.

He boasted of being targeted by Russian President Vladimir Putin and by North Koreas Kim Jong Un, whose government this week called Biden a rabid dog who deserved to be beaten to death with a stick. Biden said he took it as a compliment, calling the North Korean dictator a thug.

At the earlier event, Biden brought up the latest school shooting, this week in Santa Clarita, California, in which a teenager killed two classmates and wounded three others, calling the succession of such tragedies a moral failure.

While saying he supports the Second Amendment, Biden called the absolutist arguments of some gun-rights supporters bizarre. Noting people cant own machine guns or bazookas, Biden said, Why should we allow people to have military-style weapons including pistols with 9-mm bullets and can hold 10 or more rounds?

He called the anxiety among young people over being shot in school these days overwhelming and not just in tough neighborhoods but in great neighborhoods like this.

Mentioning his own shotgun ownership, Biden talked about Delaware goose-hunting restrictions that limit hunters to three shotgun shells. We protect geese from Canada more than we do people, he said.

Biden last campaigned in Washington state in June, speaking at private fundraisers in Seattle and Medina. Then, as on Friday, he made no public appearances, unlike some of his 2020 rivals. Warren drew a crowd of 15,000 to a campaign rally at Seattle Center in August, and New York entrepreneur Andrew Yang spoke to a crowd of about 1,000 at Gas Works Park in May.

Asked about Bidens itinerary not including any public events, state Democratic Party Chair Tina Podlodowski said in a statement: We understand all of the Democratic challengers need resources to compete against the President. However, weve encouraged all the 2020 candidates to do public events and get to know the great people of our state, and not just here in Seattle.

Washingtons presidential primary has been moved ahead from previous years. It is scheduled for March 10, 2020, just a month afterNew Hampshires first-in-the-nation primary.

Excerpt from:
Speaking at the House of Amazon, Joe Biden gently raises companys role in middle-class job losses - Seattle Times

A letter to the editor on Oct. 18 ("2nd Amendment confirms existing right," The Daily Progress) defends gun ownership by quoting the 17th-century philosopher John Locke. While Locke had an influence on the men who wrote our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, he certainly did not write those documents. To force fit a constitutional interpretation around Locke's notions is at variance with how "strict constructionists" usually interpret these documents. At least that's what strict constructionists claim to do, until they want to expand the Constitution's meaning to suit their own purposes.

The Second Amendment's actual wording, in the version authenticated by Thomas Jefferson himself, says: "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."

The Founding Fathers' intent should be clear in A well regulated militia. Able-bodied male citizens of the time were expected to be members of a militia, regulated by state governments, and to drill, follow general orders, the orders of responsible officers and, at need, provide for the common defense. Modern gun advocates conveniently ignore the "well regulated militia" phrase and focus only on private gun ownership.

The Second Amendment says nothing about random gun owners having private arsenals of assault weapons, concealed or open-carry handguns, extended magazines, silencers, Teflon-coated bullets or any of the other modern paraphernalia that strict constructionist gun advocates demand as a right.

Read the original here:
Opinion/Letter: 2nd Amendment was all about militia - The Daily Progress

Photo courtesy of Ruger.

When was the last time you went plinking? You know, shooting for fun in the woods, on the farm or at a range, probably with a .22 LR? Its what got most of us started in shooting and led to a lifetime of enjoyment with firearms. I started shooting with a friends Remington Nylon 66 in Apache Black and chrome, a .22 LR rifle I still lust after. Not long afterward, I was introduced to wing shooting with a .410-Bore shotgun and soon had my own .22 LR rifle, a Winchester 69A bolt-action.

Although you can shoot paper targets, its more fun to shoot other targets when plinking, especially if the target moves or breaks. Way back when, city dumps were left uncovered and afforded an amazing variety of targets for a dedicated plinker. Tin cans, glass bottles and the occasional rat could be hunted and shot in the dump. These days, dumps are covered, shooting isnt allowed and we dont approve of shooting glass anywhere. However, aluminum cans, plastic water bottles and similar objects can be set out and used as targets. Clay birds make good targets, because they break and are biodegradable. Should you wish to spend a little money, there are a huge variety of small-bore steel targets, as well as plastic and rubber targets that can withstand a lot of hits.

Plinking is a terrific family activity and can be used as an opportunity to teach firearms safety, gun handling and marksmanship. Once the basics are mastered, a variety of targets and informal competition can be used to maintain interest and keep everyone entertained. Shooting is fun, and a family plinking session should always be structured as a fun and enjoyable activity. Theres a lot of personal responsibility involved in handling firearms safely, followed by cleaning up and leaving no trash after the shooting session.

I encourage you to introduce some folks to shooting by taking them plinking. Taking a young boy or girl shooting is a fun and rewarding experience for everyone involved, but dont forget to include adults, too. You probably know some people who have never been introduced to shooting and would appreciate an invitation. One of the best things we can do to preserve our sport and strengthen the Second Amendment is getting more people involved in shooting, and plinking is a terrific way to do it.

View post:
Go Plinking. The Second Amendment Depends On It. - Shooting Illustrated

Staff Reports

MondayOct21,2019at2:26PM

The Second Amendment contains some of the Constitutions most debated language, creating a cultural and political divide in this country: 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.

Hendersonville native and legal expert Robert Orr will present a history of the 2nd Amendment on Nov. 9, 1 p.m. in the Kaplan Auditorium at the Henderson County Library.

Orr will address important court decisions interpreting and applying the Amendment as well as some of the broader issues of firearms regulation and gun violence that have sparked a divisive debate among pro-gun advocates and gun safety groups.

Orr was licensed as an attorney in North Carolina in 1975 and practiced law in Asheville for eleven years prior to serving on the N.C. Court of Appeals and as an Associate Justice on the N.C. Supreme Court. He won four statewide elections over the course of his judicial career, retiring in 2004.

Since then, Orr has served as the founding Executive Director of the N.C. Institute for Constitutional Law; taught as an adjunct professor at UNC School of Law; and since 2010 has returned to the private practice of law. Orr currently divides his time between Raleigh and his mountain home in Yancey County. Hes married with four grown children and four grandchildren.

A short question and answer session will follow Orrs talk.

The event is sponsored by Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America - Hendersonville Group, which describes itself as a nonpartisan organization that supports the 2nd Amendment, but believes common-sense firearm safety legislation can help decrease gun violence.

See the article here:
Former NC Justice Orr to speak on 2nd Amendment - BlueRidgeNow.com

There is currently a leftist jihad against Christian values, Conservatives, gun owners and Trumpsters. Beto ORourkes recent attack on owners of certain rifles chimes right in.

Mass shootings were almost nonexistent when I was a kid, and some high-schoolers would occasionally bring a gun to show their buddies. What happened?

Christian values that once helped moderate our evil ways are constantly scorned by Hollywood, the left, the ACLU and Democrats who now hold atheists in high esteem.

NFL quarterback Drew Brees was recently vilified for telling kids to bring their Bibles to school on Oct 3. The left has sown bad seeds for decades, and now the harvest is coming in.

Statistics show about one person a day is killed in America with a rifle, while 29 are killed daily by drunken driving. No one is attacking the sale of alcohol. Eight teens a day are killed by wrecks while on a cell phone, but phones are OK. Sixty percent of gun deaths are self-inflicted. About 129 Americans a day die from opioids. However, thats a non-violent crime. More than 2,000 unborn Americans are slaughtered daily, and Dems approve.

Democrats want to ban certain rifles, and then it will be pistols. Will bad guys give theirs up? Revolvers and slide actions would be next. Obviously their goal is erasing the Second Amendment. Listening to the Dems in their debates is like an echo chamber of insanity. So, borrowing a line from early American patriots: Dont tread on me!

JIM EHMEN

Paxton

Follow this link:
Letter to the Editor | Second Amendment is under attack - Champaign/Urbana News-Gazette

By Vikram D. Amar and Alan E. Brownstein

This artwork refers to the political conversations about guns.

This artwork refers to the political conversations about guns.

Photo: Donna Grethen / Tribune Content Agency

This artwork refers to the political conversations about guns.

This artwork refers to the political conversations about guns.

Opinion: What the gun lobby gets wrong about the Second Amendment

The Supreme Court will hear a gun control case in December that could significantly limit the ability of state and local governments to regulate guns for public safety reasons.

The case involves a New York City regulation on transporting handguns that was repealed in July. Although that original rule is no longer in effect, for now the court has not determined the matter to be moot, so the case will move forward.

In this dispute and others, opposition to gun regulations is often grounded on the premise that once an individual interest is identified as a fundamental right, that interest prevails over all countervailing public concerns.

That premise is profoundly mistaken. And, importantly, it is inconsistent with the way that constitutional doctrine has developed with other fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Second Amendment rights should be treated no more favorably, despite the political rhetoric of gun rights supporters who claim that any firearm regulation is an unconstitutional infringement on their rights.

Of course, a constitutional right does carry with it a strong presumption against government interference with that particular activity, even though the exercise of the right involves a societal cost. We protect freedom of religion, for example, even though we know that some religious practices like pulling children out of school after the eighth grade might be considered problematic or harmful.

But there is a critical difference between assigning a high value to a constitutional right when balancing it against social concerns, and arguing that the right necessarily overrides the publics ability to regulate that activity in ways that may be needed to protect the community.

The doctrine surrounding freedom of speech is instructive. No one doubts that speech rights are taken seriously in America. Yet the right to free speech is not absolute and can be regulated in numerous circumstances. Courts subject government regulations that affect speech to different standards of review that balance the publics interest against the individuals liberty. Among factors considered are the kind of speech involved and the location and manner of the restriction.

For example, a ban on rallies on public streets in residential neighborhoods after 9 p.m. would likely be upheld even though it burdens speech, so long as the law did not discriminate based on the message rally speakers expressed.

So too with protections for personal privacy under the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. That amendment doesnt bar all searches and seizures, but instead requires that such intrusions be reasonable, a concept that inherently involves some kind of balancing of interests. Hence, we all must endure airport security screening searches because they are a reasonable means to protect air travel safety.

The individual right to bear arms for self-defense, as announced by the Supreme Court in 2008, is likewise not unlimited. Even though the court in that case struck down a flat ban on possession of handguns that might be used for self-defense in peoples homes, it observed that states could for historical and public-policy safety reasons prohibit people with felony convictions or people with mental illness from possessing guns, demonstrating that the very scope of the Second Amendments protection takes account of countervailing public objectives.

For instance, some states require that gun owners keep their firearms locked up if there are children living in the home, even though gun owners might prefer easier access to firearms for self-defense.

Or consider the contours of self-defense itself. A Second Amendment right to keep guns for self-defense does not eliminate the need for society to think about how guns should be responsibly employed, even in self-defense situations. If someone uses a gun purportedly for self-defense purposes and kills another person, the Second Amendment does not preclude an evaluation of whether the alleged threat was sufficient to justify the use of deadly force or whether the killing involved excessive force because reasonable nonlethal alternatives were available for the shooter to defend himself.

The national debate now has focused on proposed regulations such as background checks and assault weapons bans. Whether specific measures would be permissible under the Constitution depends on their particulars, but the big point is that particulars matter.

In evaluating gun control regulations, its legitimate to take into account the social harms and risks arising from individuals keeping, bearing and using firearms.

Constitutional analysis of the Second Amendment, as with other fundamental rights, requires some kind of balancing of interests, which includes considering the states need to promote public safety.

Vikram D. Amar is dean and professor of law at the University of Illinois College of Law. Alan E. Brownstein is professor of law at the UC Davis School of Law.

See original here:
Opinion: What the gun lobby gets wrong about the Second Amendment - Middletown Press