Category Archives: Second Amendment

WSYM-TV

State faces lawsuit over guns in foster homes WSYM-TV (WXYZ) - A federal lawsuit brought on by two Michigan families and the national Second Amendment Foundation alleges the state of Michigan is violating Second Amendment rights by targeting gun owners who foster children. The dispute centers around ...

Visit link:
State faces lawsuit over guns in foster homes - WSYM-TV

Thanks to a tortured ruling by the Washington State Supreme Court, there is a dangerous new threat to gun ownership.

Its called a gun violence tax and Washingtons high court sided with the City of Seattle, which adopted such a tax in 2015 in a gun control strategy to slither around the 34-year-old state preemption law that placed exclusive authority for regulating firearms in the hands of the State Legislature.

This gun tax violates the legislative intent of statewide uniformity by taxing law-abiding gun owners inside the city, and the retailers who cater to them. In Seattles case, the tax is $25 on the sale of each firearm, plus two to five cents for each round of ammunition sold.

This threat takes on even more sinister dimensions when one considers the potential for cities to simply up the fee. Seattle started with $25 per gun, but what if they want to raise that to $100, $500 or even $1,000? It opens the door wide to making gun ownership prohibitively expensive for average citizens. Essentially, Washingtons Supreme Court just handed the gun prohibition lobby and its allies in government a new strategy: If they cant ban or regulate gun ownership out of existence, they will simply tax it into oblivion.

The ruling creates a new battleground for groups like the National Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Count on this: Municipal city and county governments controlled by anti-gun liberal politicians will be eyeballing such taxes in their own communities. They may say the revenue will be used for gun violence research or prevention programs, but in reality this is to finance gun control, and they know it. Such taxes penalize honest gun owners and use their money to conduct questionable research with the ultimate goal of using the findings of such research to support additional restrictions on their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Daniel Webster is credited with observing that The power to tax is the power to destroy. This should alarm any civil rights activist because now there may be nothing to prevent placing similar taxes on the exercise of other rights. If this case were about anything other than firearms, one could certainly wonder if the court would have come down on the citys side.

Why not put a special tax on freedom of speech or the press? How about we slap a special tax on abortions? Once the door is open to government to institute a tax on one right, there is nothing to prevent the same government from pursuing other taxes on other rights. One thing government is good at is levying taxes.

Currently, only Seattle and Cook County, Illinois which encompasses Chicago, have instituted gun violence taxes. Thousands of local governments have been carefully watching this case so that they could use the Washington ruling to launch their own financial infringements on the exercise of a civil right.

The Washington State ruling is a shot fueled by judicial activism across the bow of every American gun owner who has heretofore refrained from voting on local judges and state supreme court candidates. Elections do matter, now more than ever. When the highest court in any state gives the nod to taxing the exercise of a fundamental civil right, it plows dangerous new ground and plants legal landmines in its wake.

Alan Gottlieb is founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation. Dave Workman is senior editor of TheGunMag.com.

See the original post here:
Commentary: The dangerous new threat to gun ownership: 'Gun Violence Taxes' - Elko Daily Free Press

By David Codrea

USA -(Ammoland.com)-Skyhorse Publishing is about to release my next book, which is devoted to great and fatal government-caused disasters. The title is . Im From the Government, and Im Here to Kill You: The Human Cost of Official Negligence, attorney and author David T. Hardy informed AmmoLand Shooting Sports News Thursday. Texas City, the Tuskegee Syphilis study, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Fast and Furious, the VA hospital scandal time after time, government employees kill Americans by negligence, stupidity, or agency corruption, and time after time they escape all legal accountability.

Hardys should be a familiar name to longtime readers of this columnists work. His contributions to advancing the right to keep and bear arms have been chronicled extensively on The War On Guns blog, which has over the years featured numerous posts on his numerous books, his groundbreaking In Search of the Second Amendment documentary, his observations on the Of Arms & the Law blog, and his legal work, including cases and law review articles.

By way of complete disclosure, Mr. Hardy has represented my interests in legal actions to obtain information from the government and is part of what a U.S. Attorney who came on board during the Obama administration has pejoratively described as a tangled web of connections between a small cadre of firearms activists.

Ill offer one other stipulation, just to make sure all cards are on the table so that any recommendations I make can be viewed with the appropriate skepticism the words of everyone with an agenda (admitted or otherwise) should be: I havent read the book.

Thats because it hasnt been released yet.

The publisher informs me that the book may be released 1-2 weeks before the official Amazon release date of October 10, Hardy advises. Amazon will begin shipping as soon as they receive the books, and October 10 only reflects the publishers guarantee that Amazon will have them by that date come hell or high water. The publisher tries to beat that date by a week or two.

So why make noise about it now?

Because you can pre-order it. And because with some authors, I have confidence and faith based on past experience. So Id like to start the buzz on this immediately, to prime gun owner rights advocates to be ready for the release by learning about the book now. As such, here are some resources you are invited to check out (and to share with those you think would be interested):

Note the website includes links to pre-order form Amazon and Barnes & Noble.

Also see:

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

Go here to see the original:
Second Amendment Author and Attorney Documents Lethal Government Actions - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

In response to the Union-Sun & Journal's recent editorial, I do believe in States rights, the need for local control and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing state rights. However, I want your readers to know my steadfast belief that states like New York should not have the ability to take away the Constitutional rights of their citizens. Under no circumstances should these basic rights be denied, and federal action is warranted in a situation where a state is infringing on the rights of any American.

The Constitution is the law of the land, and the Founding Fathers produced a document with a clear vision regarding Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment can only be interpreted one way, and that is it guarantees that Americans have the right to own a firearm.

My proposed legislation, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA), has sparked a needed conversation about the Second Amendment rights granted to Americans in the Constitution. In 2013, Governor Andrew Cuomos Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act infringed upon the rights of law-abiding New Yorkers by instituting strict rifle and shotgun regulations. As you pointed out, these regulations were put in place purely for political purposes.

SAGA focuses specifically on protecting Second Amendment rights, and in no way is taking away the rights of states. When a state crosses the line and starts to implement regulations that are in stark contrast to the basic rights given to Americans, action needs to be taken. That is exactly why I am proposing my law to rein in the unconstitutional policies that Governor Cuomo forced into law.

Governor Cuomo overstepped with the SAFE Act, and my proposal to repeal much of the law has had a great deal of support. SAGA isnt hypocritical; it is a sincere effort to bring back the freedoms given to New Yorkers by our Constitution when it comes to owning a firearm. Law abiding citizens should not be punished because of onerous and unconstitutional state regulations.

It is my duty as an elected representative to make sure my constituents are protected, and that includes protecting the basic rights granted to them in the Constitution. The SAFE Act only curbed the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding New Yorkers, instead of providing them with a safer place to live as promised by the Governor.

The SAFE Act has done nothing to help our communities and has only taken away our freedoms. It is time we end this disastrous law for all New Yorkers and revert back to what the Founding Fathers intended for our nation.

U.S. Rep. Chris CollinsNY-27th Congressional DistrictClarence

Link:
Collins: My bill would restore New Yorkers' 2nd Amendment rights - Lockport Union-Sun & Journal

During the past few years, foster parents around the country have come forward to say they were told to give up their gunsor give up carrying them on their person for self-defenseas a way of complying with the foster care requirements for their particular state.

A Michigan coupleWilliam and Jill Johnsonare currently in the news for this very issue. During efforts to become the foster parents for their grandson, Johnson claimed the case worker talked to him about gun ownership, saying, If you want to care for your grandson you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights.

The Johnsons filed suit as a result, and even The New York Times has picked up the Johnsons story and reported it in a substantive manner.

Johnson claimed the case worker talked to him about gun ownership, saying, If you want to care for your grandson you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights.According to the Times, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services handbook for foster parents says firearms shall be stored in a locked metal or solid wood gun case, or trigger-locked and stored without ammunition in a locked area. Moreover, the Times reports that MDHHS requires all ammunition being locked up and handguns be registered.

Michigan is getting all the attention right now, but itis not the only state with anti-Second Amendment mandates tied to foster parenting.

For example, on Sept. 1, 2015, Breitbart News reported that Nevada residents Kristi and Rod Beber faced the possibility of losing their foster children because Rod grabbed a gun and ran out in the front yard to stop an alleged disturbance. The matter was handled without a shot being fired or an injury incurred, yet News 3reported that the Nevada Department of Family Services (DFS) pulled the Bebers foster license and told them Rods reaction to the disturbance did not sound like an adult exercising sound judgment.

Months earlier, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that another coupleBrian and Valerie Wilsonwere denied their request to foster parent because they both carried concealed handguns for self-defense.

The Nevada Legislature corrected these rules/requirements, but similar regulations are still in place in states throughout the country.

Consider Massachusetts, where guidelines for foster and adoptive homes say:

Any firearms located in the home shall be registered and licensed in accordance with state law. All firearms shall be trigger-locked or fully inoperable and stored without ammunition in a locked area. Ammunition shall be stored in a separate locked location.

Even states like Oklahomaconservative and pro-gun by any measuretoyed with requiring prospective foster parents to sign a weapons safety agreement, then abandoned the effort before it could become official policy.

Illinois is currently facing a lawsuit over its anti-Second Amendment foster parent requirements. Fox News reports:

Prospective Illinois foster parents must either certify that there are no firearms in their home or complete a form called the Foster Family Firearms Arrangement. That document requires a list of all guns and ammunition in the home and locations where they are stored. Would-be foster parents also must certify the guns have trigger locks and are stored unloaded, separate from ammunition and in locked containers accessible only with a key kept off the premises or on the owners person.

Its a nonsensical law that flies in the face of the Constitution. NRATV's Grant StinchfieldOn Jan. 17 of this year, NRATVs Grant Stinchfield addressed the anti-Second Amendment regulation on firearms in the homes of foster parents in Illinois. He observed, Its a nonsensical law that flies in the face of the Constitution. He asked, Why should you give up a constitutional right when youre engaging in the charitable act of taking care of a child in need?

To Stinchfields point, why are foster parents targeted with gun control that exceeds the controls faced by other citizens? Are the states trying to discourage foster parenting, or are they just seizing an an opportunity to secure more gun control in any way they can?

Link:
Foster Families Torn Apart By Anti-Second Amendment Regulations - America's 1st Freedom (press release) (blog)

The Second Amendment is not limited to a simple sentence. It is of critical importance that it could have been left at that, a simple sentence making a straightforward declaration about a right of the people, but it was not.

A Colt M4 rifle and a button that reads I Vote Proud Washington Gun Owner.

OPINION In my lifetime gun control has become as explosive as any political issue in this country can be. To my mind, all we need to do to settle that issue once and for all is to read the Second Amendment and do what it says.

Here it is: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.

One possible interpretation of that wording is that the whole rationale for a militia has been eliminated. The idea of a standing army was the single thing that struck the most fear into the hearts of those who authored the Constitution. Since they would brook no standing army, having a militia would be necessary to the security of the Union. Since we now have a standing army, plus a National Guard that has been called out in more than one time of crisis, a militia really is unnecessary. Since a militia is unnecessary, the rationalein the Amendmentfor a right to keep and bear arms no longer exists.

On the other hand, there is nothing particularly wrong with having a militia. So, why not have a well-regulated militia (or a unit of the militia) in each state? If one wanted to keep and bear arms, one would have to be a member in good standing of the militia in the state of which one was a citizen.

People who want an utterly unfettered right to keep and bear arms dont like that idea. As I understand it, they offer four main arguments to support their point of view. Those are: the original language argument; the subordinate clause argument; the protection against tyranny argument; and the self-defense argument. All of those arguments are offered in support of their contention thatthe Second Amendment asserts an unfettered right to keep and bear arms.

My understanding of those arguments leans heavily onThe Second Amendment Primer, by Les Adams, though I have also participated in discussions on this topic, including face-to-face and via the internet. In the Introduction of his book Mr. Adams informs us that he is a lawyer who had studied constitutional law in law school who was gradually led to investigate the controversy surrounding the Second Amendment. I have also readThe Bill of Rights Primer,co-authored by that same Esq. Adams and Akhill Reed Amar. In both books scholarship is on impressive display.

Related |Marijuana, Gun Control, Minimum Wage Hikes Win At The Polls

In this critique of the argument concerning original language Ill focus on three terms, militia, well regulated, and security. Esq. Adams also talked about bear arms, but I wont bother with that. I suppose any term in the Amendment could be subject to debate, but Ill limit myself to three.

Mr.s Adams and Amar make the case that originally the right to keep and bear arms was a political right accruing to the people as a whole. According to them, it was widely thought at that time that the militia referred to all arms-bearing citizens, which in turn could be all adult malesthough some states would pass laws prohibiting people of (relatively recent) African heritage, even freemen, to own guns. The Constitution makes it very clear, however, that a/the militia was a specific organization (a point Ill revisit below).

As for well regulated, despite any talk of originalism, its meaning doesnt appear to have actually evolved. Esq. Adams says that then and there it meant well functioning and leaves it at that, but when it comes to organizations that is still what well regulated means. The U.S. Army, for example, has a whole book of Regulations for the sole purpose of ensuring that it will function well as an army.

There is another word in the amendment that I think bears some examination, even though it is one Mr. Adams and others, in my experience, ignore. That word is security. When I remembered the amendment, having read it some time ago, I remembered that word as defense, but the word in the amendment is definitely security.

It sounds too contemporary to be in that document. Why did they use that word instead of defense? As noted, the idea of a militia was prompted by the fear of a standing army. With no standing army, if the nation was attacked by a foreign power, an armed, well-regulated militia would be necessary for its defense. So why did they use security instead?

I submit that the answer lies in Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, where the powers of Congress are enumerated, as in Congress shall have the power to. It then lists quite a few Tos. In one of them the militia is indisputably referred to as an organization: organizing it, funding it, etc.

That the Constitution addresses the militia in its original text, before the Bill of Rights was added to it, is not something people who want an unfettered right to keep and bear arms emphasize. Altogether, in the two books authored by Mr. Adams that point of interest is mentioned oncein the one he co-authored with Mr. Amar.

One of the powers explicitly given to Congress is To provide for calling forth the militia tosuppress Insurrections. Im saying that is why security is in the Second Amendment, not defense. Security includes defending democratic government against armed insurrection by people who, unable to prevail to their satisfaction politically, would use arms to impose their point of view on everyone else.

That brings us to the protection against tyranny argument. Some people would have us believe that the people who wrote the Constitution to institute a new government put the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights to ensure that there would be people with guns available to perpetrate at their discretion in an armed insurrection against the government.

Related |The Facts That Neither Side Wants To Admit About Gun Control

That never made much sense to me. For sure, then as now, there were people who thought such protection against tyranny is a good thing, but the Constitution makes it clear that facilitating armed insurrection is not the purpose for having the militia. Tyranny has made an entrance more than once in human history through an armed insurrection.

Most fundamentally, this nation was founded on the proposition that power is the enemy of justice. No person, group, or organization is to be trusted with unfettered power.

Justice is all about containing power, keeping it on a leash, regulating it. That is why distrust of governmental power is completely validand a concern that I, a rationalist who is neither a conservative nor a liberal nor an adherent of any other ideology, share. [On my Web site,www.ajustsolution.com, I have a proposal for separating the power of printing money from government (andthe banking system)which would allow us to end all taxation and public debt, among other good things it would accomplish.]

Gun advocate Luke Crawford displays his rifle across his chest in protest at a gun control rally at the Georgia State Capitol in Atlanta. (Jaime Henry-White/AP)

Governmental power is not the only kind of power that exists, however. Having money is a form of power, too, which is one reason why many other people and I distrust Big Business. Having a gun in your hand is also a form of power. That is why many other people and I want to regulate in some way the ownership of guns.

Actually, for many who argue for an unfettered right to keep and bear arms any discussion of a/the militia is beside the point, anyway. Thats because all of that is contained, they say, in a subordinate clause. It is their contention that a subordinate clause, being subordinate, is of little or no importance compared to the main clause.

I am genuinely embarrassed for lawyers who would say such a thing and mean it. In the first place, I challenge anyone to show me any document ever written by any lawyer that didnt contain at least one subordinate clause in every sentence. Would they call those clauses meaningless verbiage? They would not.

In the English language subordinate clauses have always mattered, including the place and time of the writing of the Constitution. Those who suggest otherwise are confusing one of the words we use to describe the parts of a sentence with the more common meaning of the word subordinate.

In grammar, a clause is designated as being subordinate because it cannot stand alone as a complete sentence unto itself. It would make no sense to write, A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.

On the other hand, consider writing, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That can stand alone as a sentence and make perfectly good sense. Grammatically, that is why that part of the Second Amendment is called a main clause.

Yet, the Second Amendment is not limited to that simple sentence. It is of critical importance that it could have been left at that, a simple sentence making a straightforward declaration about a right of the people, but it was not.

The authors of the Second Amendment wanted to say something more. They wanted to relate that right to something else. That is why they added a subordinate clause that did not have to be there in order for the Second Amendment to be grammatically and logically correct. If anything, that enhances the importance of that subordinate clause. It obviously refers to the militia of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution.

That does not quite exhaust the arguments of those who want an unfettered right to keep and bear arms, however. Finally, we have the self-defense argument.

Plain and simply, that is not mentioned in the Second Amendment. Shame on the strict constructionists, much less the originalists among us who bring that topic into the discussion.

Related | Gun Control After Sandy Hook: Is There A Middle Ground?

Mr. Adams does include quite a few quotes from people who have supported a right to keep and bear arms on that ground. Many people may have voted for it on that ground. For one thing, there was no such thing as a police department in that place (or anywhere in Europe) at that time.

That does not make self-defense part of the Second Amendment as it was written. Just as the authors of that amendment could have left out the subordinate clause they included in it, they could have included a clause about self-defense, but did not.

In support of his point of view Mr. Adams does quote eight (but only eight) state constitutions that include a right to keep and bear arms. Only one of the eight includes any mention of self-defense.

In the primer on the Bill of Rights Esq. Adams co-authored, they discuss how the Fourteenth Amendment extended the applicability of the Bill of Rights to the individual states and suggest that it changed the focus of the intent of the right in question to self-defense. They argue that much of that change in focus had to do with allowing people of (relatively recent) African heritage to defend themselves against racists. What gun-hating Liberal could argue with that?

Whatever anyone else may say, and for whatever reason, I say the Fourteenth Amendment did not change the wording of the Second Amendment or explicitly introduce wording into the Constitution to change the intent of the Second Amendment. It still has all the same wordsand no morewith that pesky subordinate clause that did not have to be there still there.

So, let each state have a well-regulated militia (or a unit of the militia). While, again, Article I of the Constitution grants explicit powers to Congress regarding any militia, surely there is room in there for each state to specify what kind(s) of guns the members of the militia in that state may keep and bear, and whether a gun can be kept at homeor on ones personor not. To own a gun of any kind, however, a person would have to be a member in good standing of the militia in the state of which one was a citizen.

Stephen isa lifetime student of history, philosophy, and economics (with an M.A. in the last of those subjects) who has published essays and articles in various media, print and on-line (to include an academic journal,Contemporary Philosophy), and a book,A Just Solution.

The views expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect Mint Press News editorial policy.

Follow this link:
Gun Control: How To Solve The Second Amendment - Mintpress News (blog)

The case is unfolding in Michigan and revolves aroundWilliam and Jill Johnsons efforts to care for their grandson.

On July 18 Breitbart News reported that theSecond Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed suit against the head of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services over alleged violations of the Johnsons gun rights. William Johnson claims the case worker said, If you want to care for your grandson you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb told Breitbart News that this sacrifice of Second Amendment rights would include having no guns for self-protection at home or carried on ones person.

Now the New York Times is covering the case, which they summarize by reporting, Mr. Johnson and his wife, Jill, are suing their home state, Michigan, which bars foster parents from carrying concealed weapons. At issue is whether the states rules amount to a functional ban on owning a firearm, in violation of the Constitutions Second Amendment.

They indicate that William Johnson says he had to forfeit his carry gun under duress in order to satisfy the requirements for foster care.

UCLAs Adam Winkler spoke about the Johnsons suit, saying, This is not a case thats outlandish or off the wall. Foster parents do have constitutional rights, and they dont forsake those rights just because they become foster parents.

William Johnson is a disabled military veteran and his wife owns a fishing tackle shop. Guns have been part of their lives, both for sport and personnel protection, and hesays the area in which they live is full of bear and other predators that could easily attack him, his wife, or his grandson. Having a handgun on his person is a way to be sensibly and constitutionally prepared.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host ofBullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter:@AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

See the original post here:
Shock: Gun Control Icon Defends Second Amendment Rights of Grandparents Targeted in Michigan - Breitbart News

This week, Congressman Chris Collins (R-NY) introduced legislation that would shield popular rifles and shotguns, including the AR-15, from being banned under state laws. The bill, known as the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA), would also protect parts for these firearms, including detachable magazines and ammunition feeding devices.

The bill is a response to antigun laws in a small handful of states including California, Connecticut, D.C., Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York that criminalize the mere possession of highly popular semiautomatic long guns widely available throughout the rest of the country. Although rifles or shotguns of any sort are used less often in murders than knives, blunt objects such as clubs or hammers, or even hands, fists, and feet, gun control advocates have sought to portray the banned guns as somehow uniquely dangerous to public safety.

Please contact your U.S. Representative and ask him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 3576, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act. You can call your U.S. Representative at 202-225-3121.

TAKE ACTION TODAY

Anti-gunners focus on these so-called assault weapons was renewed after the U.S. Supreme Courts 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. That decision made clear that handguns by far the type of firearm most commonly used in crime were subject to Second Amendment protection and could not be banned. This led gun control advocates to seek out other sorts of guns to demonize, and theyve since been strenuously promoting the myth that semiautomatic rifles and shotguns with certain features such as detachable magazines, pistol grips or adjustable stocks are weapons of war with no legitimate civilian use.

Yet Americans overwhelmingly choose these types of firearms for legitimate purposes, including protection of their homes and properties, three-gun and other practical shooting sports, and hunting and pest control. And, indeed, the states legislative attempts to ban these guns has spurred a market for innovative products that use the same basic calibers and firing mechanisms, but with stock, grip, and accessory configurations that comply with legislative guidelines.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to review any of these state bans, lower courts have come up with increasingly strained readings of the Second Amendment and Supreme Court precedents to try to justify them. The Seventh Circuit, for example, held that even if a ban's incursion on Second Amendment rights had no beneficial effect on safety whatsoever, it could still be justified on the basis of the false sense of security it might impart to local residents with exaggerated fears of the banned guns. [I]f it has no other effect," the majority opinion stated, the challenged ordinance may increase the public's sense of safety. Thats hardly an acceptable offset for the infringement of a constitutional right.

Members of the Supreme Court have criticized their colleagues for failing to review these cases and the lower courts for misapplying Supreme Court precedent. As noted in a dissent filed by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by Hellers author, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, Thomas concluded, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.

With states violating Americans rights and federal courts allowing them to act with impunity, it is up to Congress to ensure that all Americans, wherever they may live, have access the best, most modern and innovative firearms for their lawful needs, including the protection of themselves and their families.

The SAGA would ensure that state regulations could not effectively prevent the manufacture, sale, importation, or possession of any rifle or shotgun lawfully available under federal law or impose any prohibitive taxes, fees, or design limitations on such firearms.

The NRA thanks Rep. Chris Collins for leading this important effort and urges his colleagues to cosponsor and support this staunchly pro-gun legislation.

Please contact your U.S. Representative and ask him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 3576, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act. You can call your U.S. Representative at 202-225-3121.

See original here:
NRA-ILA | Second Amendment Guarantee Act Would Protect ... - NRA ILA

From: Steven J. Beyers Winona

A July 30 opinion writer stated that the Second Amendment was originally meant for militia, now expanded to self defense.

In 1791, George Mason asked, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. He also wrote ... that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty ...

Patrick Henry said, The great object is, that every man be armed ... Everyone who is able may have a gun.

In the Federalist No. 28, Alexander Hamilton, wrote, If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no course left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.

The opinion writer also stated, The founders understood that majority rule had its dangers ... That is why we are not a democracy, but are, in the words of Ben Franklin, A republic, if you can keep it.

The Constitution provides an amendment process that allows for additions and adjustments. From privates to presidents, all public servants swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies. As someone who has sworn that oath twice, I find it curious that the writer, who has sworn that same oath, would describe the Constitution as deeply flawed.

Excerpt from:
Second Amendment insight - Winona Post

The gun rights group is warning law-abiding armed citizens that their civil rights could be in jeopardy due to that states restrictive gun control laws.

SAF founder and executive vice president Alan Gottlieb observed:

The California Legislature has been out of control for years when it comes to placing restrictions on the Second Amendment rights of honest citizens. Right now, I wouldnt suggest to any gun owner that they even travel through the state, much less to it as their final destination.

Lawmakers in Sacramento either ignored or have forgotten that in 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment in SAFs landmark case ofMcDonald v. City of Chicago. The Second Amendments protection of the right to keep and bear arms applies to state and local governments, but they seem rather oblivious to that fact in the halls of Californias Legislature.

He added:

If you are licensed to carry in your home state, that license is not recognized in California. It doesnt matter how many background checks youve gone through or whether you took a gun safety course. Your license is no good in the Golden State, which suggests that your safety and the safety of your family are of no concern to state lawmakers or city administrators. You could be prosecuted for having a gun for personal protection, or you might get killed because you didnt.

Gottlieb is spot on. California refuses to recognize any concealed carry permit other the one they issue. This is an expression of Democratic hegemony whereby they have made concealed carry licenses extremely difficult for Californians to acquire fewer than 100,000 Californians have a license and they do not want to provide a means for additional law-abiding citizens to be armed via reciprocity.

What does this mean? It means that when a visitor from another state drives into California, he is not supposed to be armed, regardless of the number of out-of-state concealed permits he possesses or the risks associated with being defenseless. None of these things matter because the Democrats have spoken.

Gottliebs verdict: By not going to California, the life you save may be your own.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host ofBullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter:@AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Read the original:
2nd Amendment Foundation Issues Travel Advisory: Your Gun Rights Are No Good in California - Breitbart News