Category Archives: Second Amendment

By Doug Pennington By Doug Pennington August 4

Doug Pennington is a communications professional and D.C. resident.

News has been virtually exploding from our phones and televisions of late so much so that a cannon shot of a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit late last month was barely heard: Two judges on a three-judge panel struck down the Districts system of concealed-carry gun regulations as a violation of the Second Amendment.

What happens next holds critical implications for the safety of our neighborhoods, not only in the District but also in cities and states across the United States. Weak concealed-carry laws do not make Americans more secure.

The courts wrongheaded decision does not entirely come as a surprise. As I testified before the D.C. Council in 2014, One can hardly avoid the writing on the wall when it comes to ... laws that totally, or even virtually, prohibit carrying firearms outside the home.

That said, four other U.S. circuit courts have upheld the constitutionality of laws similar to the Districts, in which license applicants must provide local authorities with a good reason to carry a loaded, hidden handgun in public to justify the risks of doing so. For its part, the Supreme Court has so far shown little interest in plunging again into the thicket of gun violence prevention policy, and small wonder.

This area of law has produced general agreement among lower courts, in part because it presents a web of complex life-or-death problems that are far better suited for the peoples representatives to balance and resolve, rather than judges in the peace of [their] judicial chambers as Ronald Reagan appointee Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III eloquently wrote in 2011.

The two D.C. Circuit judges, however, shot through that restrained judicial wisdom. They stretched the limited holding of the Supreme Courts landmark decision in D.C. v. Heller to press the broader cause of firearms deregulation. How?

It is important to recall that Justice Antonin Scalias majority opinion in Heller narrowly held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms at home for self-defense. In the courts first substantive Second Amendment case in nearly 70 years, however, Scalia also added a great deal of discussion of the amendments text and history, as he saw it including his understanding of what it means to bear, or carry, arms.

The D.C. Circuits majority opinion drafted by George W. Bush appointee Judge Thomas B. Griffith took advantage of this added verbiage, circumventing Hellers narrow holding in favor of essentially rewriting it to say there is a core constitutional right to carry guns outside the home.

The D.C. Circuits decision ham-handedly sweeps aside centuries of practice and precedent for strict concealed-carry regulation reaching back to 1300s England through the ratification of the 14th Amendment. The opinion also managed to take a snide, condescending tone, in a manner sadly consonant with the Trump era and beneath the gravity of the issues at stake.

Perhaps most significant, Griffiths opinion failed to acknowledge the fundamental difference about the Second Amendment identified years ago by Dennis Henigan, former vice president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: The gun right recognized in Heller is the most dangerous right, unlike any other in the Constitution.

A wealth of empirical evidence shows, Henigan wrote, that the exercise of the right to possess guns increases the risk of harm to individuals exercising the right, to their families and to the community at large. Rather than respect this evidence and recognize that more than 125 D.C. residents have already received concealed-carry gun licenses, Griffiths opinion repeatedly compared gun rights with free speech rights. But as Americans have seen all too often from concealed-carry permit holders including the Washington Navy Yard shooter there are life-or-death matters at stake here.

This deeply problematic, and potentially dangerous, D.C. Circuit ruling should be vacated by the full D.C. Circuit, and the case should be reheard. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush wrote a masterful dissent that is practically a road map for such a reexamination. It soberly respects the text and history of the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent and the demonstrated public-safety concerns of the people of the District. As she wrote, Regulations restricting public carrying are all the more compelling in a geographically small but heavily populated urban area like the District. Quoting another case, she wrote that Washington is the seat of our national government, a city full of high-level government officials, diplomats, monuments, parades, protests and demonstrations and, perhaps most pertinent, countless government buildings where citizens are almost universally prohibited from possessing firearms.

If the full D.C. Circuit were to apply the same diligence to its analysis, it would follow Hendersons lead, reiterating a cross-ideological consensus from courts across the United States: We must uphold our Second Amendment rights while also allowing our elected officials to take reasonable steps to protect public safety.

See the original post:
D.C.'s concealed-carry regulations just suffered a shot across the ... - Washington Post

Roll Call reports that Moore was at the club on Thursday responding to a constituents question as to whether he supported the Second Amendment. Moore responded by saying, We carry, and pulling a handgun out of his wifes purse.

UNITED STATES AUGUST 3: GOP candidate for U.S. Senate Roy Moore returns his wifes hand gun to her after displaying it as a way to show support for the 2nd amendment after candidates were asked about their views on gun rights during a candidates forum in Valley, Ala., on Thursday, Aug. 3, 2017. The former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court is running tin the special election to fill the seat vacated by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)

The gun was a snub-nose revolver that appeared to be made of lightweight materials for concealed carry.

Moore then handed the gun back to his wife so she could tuck it back into her purse. He later said, I will uphold the SecondAmendment.

The 70-year-old Moore is a former Alabama Supreme Court Justice. He is vying for a Senate seat currently held by Republican Luther Strange. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) is trying to win Stranges seat as well, which makes the primary election extremely important.

All three men claim to be pro-Second Amendment and Rep. Brooks has released a number of ads focused on his pro-gun stance.

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:
U.S. Senate Candidate Pulls Out Gun at GOP Meeting to Prove He Is ... - Breitbart News

A couple of Second Amendment stories to get your weekend started. The first has to do with the apparently endless debate over so-called smart guns and the efforts by #2A opponents to mandate the clunky and still basically experimental technology on the entire country. There was an event in Washington, D.C. this week where a group of gun control enthusiasts enlisted the aid of sympathetic law enforcement officers to push for the use of such technology by the nations police departments. It was organized by Washington CeaseFire and they were pushing the idea that smart guns which recognize the fingerprints of the cops who use them wouldnt be stolen and put to use by the bad guys. Meanwhile, they would work just fine when the police officers need them.

As Dan Spencer at RedState was quick to point out, this may sound nice in theory, but it simply doesnt work that way in the real world.

Smart guns can be hacked. In fact, just last week, a hacker rendered the technology in a leading German-manufactured smart gun completely useless. He could extend the firing range beyond the allowed distance, jam the gun from firing in the hands of its user or even disable the smart mechanism completely to fire it himself

For the IP1, the smart gun offers its owner nothing more than the appearance of security. Yet, the German manufacturers marketing claimed that the gun would usher in a new era of gun safety.

If theres one thing that law enforcement needs in the field, its reliability. Unfortunately, smart gun technology doesnt offer that. Until it does, we cannot even consider it, regardless of the stats or stunts that activists push.

The hacking question is certainly a valid one (and it remains a growing concern in all aspects of IT far beyond firearms) but its hardly the only issue. Plenty of experts have reviewed most of these guns before and found other, more fundamental problems. The time it takes for the weapon to initialize so that it recognizes the owner can be far too long. And a delay in being able to deploy your firearm in a critical law enforcement situation can add up to some dead cops pretty quickly. Also, some models have inherent flaws which allow the safety features to be disabled by someone with very little in the way of expertise. In short, this technology remains far from being ready for prime time. Its bad enough that some legislators want to mandate it for private use, but forcing this on law enforcement is simply a disaster waiting to happen.

Not all of the #2A news is bad, however. The National Rifle Associations Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) reports that New York Congressman Chris Collins has introduced new legislation which would standardize gun control laws across the country for popular rifles and shotguns, including specific parts for such firearms. Named the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA), the bill will be of particular interest to owners of so-called assault rifles such as the AR-15.

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

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.

Its a fine idea in theory, but given the Supreme Courts stubborn reluctance to say much of anything about the inherent nature of Second Amendment rights since Heller, its tough to predict how they might react. The entire states rights issue inevitably gets dragged into the question, despite the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is supposed to universal. The court has similarly been vague at best when it comes to questions of modifications to firearms such as larger capacity magazines, suppressors and adjustable stocks.

Still, Ill join with the NRA in thanking Congressman Collins and his co-sponsors for at least making the effort. The Senate Democrats will probably doom it to failure before it gets off the ground, but if nothing else it might bring the argument back to the forefront for voters as we approach the midterms.

The rest is here:
Smart guns and SAGA. The Second Amendment fight drags on - Hot Air

Ive noticed something about being in the gun industry. Everyone has a story, and more often than not they are more than willing to share it with you. Well I would like you to meet Antonia Okafor and her story. Antonia is a black woman who is often criticized and belittled because of her beliefs. Mainly because she is a major advocate for the Second Amendment. She is the founder of emPOWERed, which is an organization aimed at bringing campus carry to colleges around the country. As a woman who went to college and also as a woman who has had her own experiences where I realized how important self-defense was, I could totally get behind this.

Recently Antonia wrote an article for the illustrious New York Times about why she carries a gun to school. Me being the common sense, gun loving, Second Amendment advocate that I am LOVED it. Even more so that it was attached to something that was near and dear to my heart, New York.

I thought this was awesome, living in New York City, its not often you see a pro 2A article in any newspaper from here. After reading the article I did something I normally do after reading an article, I read the comments.

What I saw in those comments honestly disturbed me on so many different levels. The comments that I read were from mostly men telling her that she shouldnt be able to keep her guns, telling her shes not strong enough and that she would be overpowered anyway and shot with her own firearm so dont even try.

Praying they werent in the same parking lot as her in fear she would accidentally shoot them because of her emotional instability. Men who were envisioning her attack and telling her to be more realistic about her protection choices. Well guess what, THIS IS REALISTIC. This is the reality for so many women.

I consider myself an old age feminist, where I believe I can do anything a man can do. Which includes taking her own self-defense into her own hands. I think what bothered me most about those comments were theyre written by the very people who claim to praise women and respect their choices. But because a WOMAN wants to exercise her Constitutional right that they dont agree with, now shes suddenly weak, uneducated, nave, and even mentally ill.

The women fighting for our Second Amendment right have a much larger fight than we all may realize. Were fighting to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States and were also fighting for our rights as women. Its a disgrace that an educated, respected woman is accused of being a pawn for the NRA and being told to depend on college escort programs, which essentially means relinquishing your ability to defend yourself to some college campus peace officer, which is also probably a male. No thanks. Ill continue exercising my rights how I see fit, which includes the first AND second Amendments.

Antonia, like so many other women in the gun industry are often criticized, ridiculed and belittled often by people who scream womens rights. If theres one thing I have to say to ANYONE who claims they are a feminist or a womans right activist is this; If you want the government to stay out of my body, then dont tell me how to defend my body.

EmPOWERed

This article is courtesy of The Loadout Room.

We thought this story would be interesting for you, for full access to premium original stories written by our all veteran journalists subscribe here.

If you liked this article, tell someone about it

Here is the original post:
What happens when a Texas 2nd Amendment woman meets New York City? - SOFREP (press release) (subscription)

By Hans A. von Spakovsky, FOX NEWS

Washington, D.C. residents, you dont have to holster your Second Amendment rights anymore. Unfortunately, residents of many other states like California dont have the same ability that D.C. residents now do to protect themselves.

In a stirring victory for those who live in the nationals capital, a panel of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals recently threw out a D.C. ordinance that denied concealed-carry permits to anyone who could not show a special need for self-defense, what is referred to as a good reason requirement. The problem is that other courts of appeal have upheld such restrictive laws and the U.S. Supreme Court has turned down appeals of those decisions, refusing to take up the issue of the Second Amendments application to carrying a weapon outside of the home.

This happened most recently at the very end of the Supreme Courts 2017 term in June when it refused to take up Peruta v. California, an appeal of a decision of the Ninth Circuit upholding Californias good reason requirement.

Go here to read the rest:
The Second Amendment Has Won (Again) In Washington. So Why ... - Fox News

The Right Opinion

Washington, DC, residents, you dont have to holster your Second Amendment rights anymore. Unfortunately, residents of many other states like California dont have the same ability that DC residents now do to protect themselves.

In a stirring victory for those who live in the nationals capital, a panel of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals recently threw out a DC ordinance that denied concealed carry permits to anyone who could not show a special need for self-defense, what is referred to as a good reason requirement. The problem is that other courts of appeal have upheld such restrictive laws and the U.S. Supreme Court has turned down appeals of those decisions, refusing to take up the issue of the Second Amendments application to carrying a weapon outside of the home.

This happened most recently at the very end of the Supreme Courts 2017 term in June when it refused to take upPeruta v. California,an appeal of a decision of the Ninth Circuit upholding Californias good reason requirement.

In a scathing dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Neil Gorsuch) castigated the other justices for treating the Second Amendment as a disfavored right."He said it was long-past time for the Court to decide this issue and that he found it "extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen.

In theopinionover the District of Columbias concealed carry law written by Judge Thomas Griffith of the DC Circuit, Griffith pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Courts first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment occurred in 2008 inDistrict of Columbia v. Heller, where the Court threw out DCs complete ban on handguns as unconstitutional.

That decision is younger than the first iPhone. The Supreme Court did not outline how the Second Amendment applies to the carrying of a weapon in public, but as Griffith says,Hellerreveals the Second Amendment erects some absolute barriers than no gun law may breach.

AfterHeller,DC implemented a complete ban on concealed carry. That was struck down in 2014 inPalmer v. District of Columbia. DC responded by restricting concealed carry permits only to those who could show a good reason to fear injury. That required showing a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community as supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks.

Living in a high-crime neighborhoodwasnta good enough reason for a concealed carry permit under DCs regulation. In essence, you had to prove you had a good reason to exercise your constitutional right, a bizarre situation unique in American constitutional jurisprudence.

DC argued, absurdly enough, that its ordinance did not violate any constitutional right because the Second Amendment doesnt apply outside of the home.

Judge Griffith dismissed this claim, saying that the fact that the need for self-defense is most pressing in the home doesnt mean that self-defense at home is the only right at the [Second] Amendments core.

Obviously, the need for self-defense might arise beyond as well as within the home. Further, the Second Amendments text protects the right to bear as well as keep arms. Thus, it is natural that the core of the Second Amendment includes a law-abiding citizens right to carry common firearms for self-defense beyond the home.

Even underHeller, governments can apply regulations on the possession and carrying of firearms that are longstanding, such as bans on possession by felons or bans on carrying near sensitive sites such as government buildings. But preventing carrying in public is not a longstanding tradition or rule.

This opinion goes into detail discussing the long American and English history applicable to weapons and self-defense, going back as far as the Statute of Northampton of 1328 whose text, as the court says, will remind Anglophiles of studying Canterbury Tales in the original. But the state of the law in Chaucers England or for that matter Shakespeares or Cromwells is not decisive here.

What is decisive is that the Supreme Court established inHellerthat by the time of the Founding, the preexisting right enshrined by the Amendment had ripened to include carrying more broadly than the District contends based on its reading of the 14th-century statute. According to Griffith, The individual right to carry common firearms beyond the home for self-defense even in densely populated areas, even for those lacking special self-defense needs falls within the core of the Second Amendments protections.

Unfortunately, other federal courts of appeals have upheld similar good reason laws for concealed carry permits. But as Judge Griffith points out, those courts dispensed with the historic digging that would have exposed that their toleration of regulations restricting the carrying of a weapon is faulty.

The constitutional analysis that should be applied to all government gun regulations is that they must allow gun access at least for each typical member of the American public. Because DCs restrictive good reason concealed carry law bars most people from exercising their Second Amendment right at all, it is unconstitutional. At a minimum, the Second Amendment must protect carrying given the risks and needs typical of law-abiding citizens.

The court drew together all the pieces of its analysis in this way:

At the Second Amendments core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to longstanding restrictions. These traditional limits include, for instance, licensing requirements, but not bans on carrying in urban areas like D.C. or bans on carrying absent a special need for self-defense. In fact, the Amendments core at a minimum shields the typically situated citizens ability to carry common arms generally. The Districts good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on exercises of that constitutional right for most D.C. residents. Thats enough to sink this law under Heller I.

One of the judges on the DC panel, Karen LeCraft Henderson, dissented, arguing that the core right in the Second Amendment is only to possess a firearm in ones home and she saw no problem with DCs good-reason requirement.

That dissent, along with the contrary decisions of other appeals courts, shows why the Supreme Court needs to follow Justice Thomass admonition and finally settle this issue. As Thomas scolds in his dissent inPeruta:

For those of us who work in marble halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it.

Republished from The Heritage Foundation.

Continued here:
The Second Amendment Won in Washington; Why Won't the Supreme Court Enforce It? - Patriot Post

Some American political and human events in history are intentionally overlooked by those responsible for teaching and analyzing them.

The nation rightfully celebrates the civil rights movement and the March on Selma. Our children are taught about womens suffrage and Susan B Anthony. The left loves to evoke memories of the Vietnam antiwar demonstrations. Modern day movements such as gay and transgender rights, the Womens March, and the Occupy movements are celebrated in the media.

How many of you have ever heard about the major event that occurred in our country that shows the importance of your Second Amendment rights? The "Battle of Athens" was the perfect example of why our founding fathers were so brilliant as to include "the right to keep and bear arms" in our Constitution.

On August 1, 1946, there was a primary election in McMinn County, Tennessee. The two major towns in the county are Athens and Etowah. Political corruption and election fraud were concerns of the local citizens. The United States Department of Justice even investigated the allegations in the three elections prior. During those elections, most of McMinn Countys young men were off fighting World War II. There was even an incident where two servicemen home on leave were shot and killed by the sheriffs deputies.

At the end of the war, approximately 3,000 experienced veterans returned to McMinn County. The GIs had known about the troubles back home, even while fighting overseas. They were not happy about what had been going on. They organized and actually put forth an "all G.I." political ticket for the primary. These ex-servicemembers promised fair elections and ballot counts.

In response, the local sheriff brought in 200 armed deputies. Poll observers, mostly GIs, were intimidated and beaten. One poll watcher was even shot. Multiple other incidents occurred and the sheriff decided to take the ballot boxes to the jail for counting.

Not trusting the sheriff, the local veterans gathered firearms and ammunition. After organizing and planning, they surrounded the jail. There was many exchanges of gun fire. Sometime during the early morning hours of August 2, the GIs made their move. Using dynamite to damage the building, they forced the surrender of those inside. The GIs posted guards to secure the ballots. When the votes were counted, the corrupt officials had been voted out.

I encourage you to research and share this event as a celebration and illustration of law-abiding American citizens using our Constitutionally-protected firearms for the betterment of our society and protection of our freedom.

The Battle of Athens is a major event in American history that is wrongly ignored by our educational system, our media, and our government officials. That alone should demonstrate why we Second Amendment supporters should hold the event up for all to see.

Use the Battle of Athens as an example to show your children what free men should be willing to do to protect that freedom.

Use the Battle of Athens to demonstrate to the media why gun control is antithetical to the Constitution and our freedoms.

Use the Battle of Athens to let our leaders know that we are in charge.

John Cylc is an eight year U.S. Army veteran. He is also a contributor to LifeZette. To read more of his reports Click Here Now.

2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Continue reading here:
Historic Battle of Athens Shows Importance of Second Amendment - Newsmax

Washington, D.C. residents, you dont have to holster your Second Amendment rights anymore. Unfortunately, residents of many other states like California dont have the same ability that D.C. residents now do to protect themselves.

In a stirring victory for those who live in the nationals capital, a panel of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals recently threw out a D.C. ordinance that denied concealed-carry permits to anyone who could not show a special need for self-defense, what is referred to as a good reason requirement. The problem is that other courts of appeal have upheld such restrictive laws and the U.S. Supreme Court has turned down appeals of those decisions, refusing to take up the issue of the Second Amendments application to carrying a weapon outside of the home.

This happened most recently at the very end of the Supreme Courts 2017 term in June when it refused to take up Peruta v. California, an appeal of a decision of the Ninth Circuit upholding Californias good reason requirement.

In a scathing dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Neil Gorsuch) castigated the other justices for treating the Second Amendment as a disfavored right. He said it was long-past time for the Court to decide this issue and that he found it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen.

In the opinion over the District of Columbias concealed carry law written by Judge Thomas Griffith of the D.C. Circuit, Griffith pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Courts first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment occurred in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, where the Court threw out D.C.s complete ban on handguns as unconstitutional.

That decision is younger than the first iPhone. The Supreme Court did not outline how the Second Amendment applies to the carrying of a weapon in public, but as Griffith says, Heller reveals the Second Amendment erects some absolute barriers than no gun law may breach.

After Heller, D.C. implemented a complete ban on concealed carry. That was struck down in 2014 in Palmer v. District of Columbia. D.C. responded by restricting concealed-carry permits only to those who could show a good reason to fear injury. That required showing a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community as supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks.

Living in a high-crime neighborhood wasnt a good enough reason for a concealed-carry permit under D.C.s regulation. In essence, you had to prove you had a good reason to exercise your constitutional right, a bizarre situation unique in American constitutional jurisprudence.

D.C. argued, absurdly enough, that its ordinance did not violate any constitutional right because the Second Amendment doesnt apply outside of the home.

Judge Griffith dismissed this claim, saying that the fact that the need for self-defense is most pressing in the home doesnt mean that self-defense at home is the only right at the [Second] Amendments core.

Obviously, the need for self-defense might arise beyond as well as within the home. Further, the Second Amendments text protects the right to bear as well as keep arms. Thus, it is natural that the core of the Second Amendment includes a law-abiding citizens right to carry common firearms for self-defense beyond the home.

Even under Heller, governments can apply regulations on the possession and carrying of firearms that are longstanding, such as bans on possession by felons or bans on carrying near sensitive sites such as government buildings. But preventing carrying in public is not a longstanding tradition or rule.

This opinion goes into detail discussing the long American and English history applicable to weapons and self-defense, going back as far as the Statute of Northampton of 1328 -- whose text, as the court says, will remind Anglophiles of studying Canterbury Tales in the original. But the state of the law in Chaucers England or for that matter Shakespeares or Cromwells is not decisive here.

What is decisive is that the Supreme Court established in Heller that by the time of the Founding, the preexisting right enshrined by the Amendment had ripened to include carrying more broadly than the District contends based on its reading of the 14th-century statute. According to Griffith, the individual right to carry common firearms beyond the home for self-defense even in densely populated areas, even for those lacking special self-defense needs falls within the core of the Second Amendments protections.

Unfortunately, other federal courts of appeals have upheld similar good reason laws for concealed carry permits. But as Judge Griffith points out, those courts dispensed with the historic digging that would have exposed that their toleration of regulations restricting the carrying of a weapon is faulty.

The constitutional analysis that should be applied to all government gun regulations is that they must allow gun access at least for each typical member of the American public. Because D.C.s restrictive good reason concealed-carry law bars most people from exercising their Second Amendment right at all, it is unconstitutional. At a minimum, the Second Amendment must protect carrying given the risks and needs typical of law-abiding citizens.

The court drew together all the pieces of its analysis in this way:

At the Second Amendments core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to longstanding restrictions. These traditional limits include, for instance, licensing requirements, but not bans on carrying in urban areas like D.C. or bans on carrying absent a special need for self-defense. In fact, the Amendments core at a minimum shields the typically situated citizens ability to carry common arms generally. The Districts good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on exercises of that constitutional right for most D.C. residents. Thats enough to sink this law under Heller I.

One of the judges on the D.C. panel, Karen LeCraft Henderson, dissented, arguing that the core right in the Second Amendment is only to possess a firearm in ones home and she saw no problem with D.C.s good-reason requirement.

That dissent, along with the contrary decisions of other appeals courts, shows why the Supreme Court needs to follow Justice Thomass admonition and finally settle this issue. As Thomas scolds in his dissent in Peruta:

For those of us who work in marble halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it.

Hans A. von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and former Justice Department official. He is coauthor of Whos Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk.

See the original post here:
The Second Amendment has won (again) in Washington. So why won't the Supreme Court fully enforce it? - Fox News

If youve heard of Brazilian jiu-jitsu, mixed-martial arts or the UFC, the reason is Royce Gracie. In the early 1990s, his dominance of the octagon brought his familys style of jiu-jitsu into the American mainstream, and the martial art has become immensely popular around the world ever since. In addition to his hand-to-hand combat skills, Gracie is also a fan of firearms and the Second Amendment. Shooting Illustrated Editor-in-Chief Ed Friedman sat down with Gracie to discuss his career, his love of freedom and his interest in guns.

SI: How did you get interested in firearms?

Royce Gracie: Growing up in Brazil, my dad had a few guns on our farm. Its part of martial arts. Sure, they say its empty hands, but so many styles use weapons, so its part of the martial arts culture. When I came to America and saw the freedom that we have, I was blown away. Back in the early days, we had a friend who would take us to the range, and wed shoot 100 rounds through a .45 ACP 1911. Our goal was to make the bullseye disappear, and I got the shooting bug. Shooting is an art. You need to know what youre doing, how to be safe, to recognize the skill needed to control that power. Its a lot like martial arts in that way.

SI: What makes someone who is so skilled in unarmed self-defense feel the need to own firearms?

Royce Gracie: What if theres more than one person? What if the adversary is armed? If its just one guy whos not armed, yeah, I can take care of him. But what if he pulls a gun? What if theres more than one attacker and they have knives? What happens if theres a terrorist attack? Ive got a mentality that Im going to try to stop an attack no matter what, but if hes got a gun, thats suicidal if Im not armed. Also, if a criminal is attacking other people, its not always feasible for even someone with my skills to stop that attack without a firearm.

Attackers arent going to make it a fair fight. They launch surprise assaults; they try to take you out to get to your family or your property. Its not the octagon. Theres no referee. And if he pulls a weapon, hes not just trying to fight mehes trying to kill me. At that point, youd be crazy to try to go hand to hand. I have a gun to defend myself if the situation escalates like that.

SI: Tell me a little about the situation in Brazil as it pertains to gun ownership and crime.

Royce Gracie: Brazil never had the degree of freedom we have in the U.S., but you used to be able to buy some guns. There were restrictions, but there were shops we could go to. Then, they essentially banned civilian ownership guns in what they said was an effort to fight crime. That resulted in the criminals arming themselves to the teeth. I mean, they had RPGs and machine guns. They get it from corrupt officials. Violence got out of control after that. It was like the law switched to protect the bad guys. So at the same time they disarmed the law-abiding citizens, they made life easier on the criminals. The murder rate went through the roof. Its so bad, the prisoners in jails get better food than the police!

SI: Why do people sign up for your classes? What is it about Brazilian jiu-jitsu that is so popular?

Royce Gracie: The main reason people go to any martial arts school is to gain confidence by learning skills. They may have had something happen to them or seen a situation that they didnt know how to react to. That stays with themthey dont go right away to learn about self-defense, but that thought stays filed away. Then one day a friend will say Hey, Im learning this martial art; lets go check it out. Then they go to class and start to get the hang of it. Its a lot of the same reasons why people buy a gun for the first time. People realize theyre vulnerable, but it often takes a while. Its not like they see a fight and say, I need to learn a martial art, but a while later that thought comes to the front and they sign up for a class. Its really all about the skills you need to be confident. Parents sign their kids up for the same reason; for the confidence that can come with the discipline that martial arts provide.

SI: What can people expect to learn in a Royce Gracie-taught class?

Royce Gracie: I teach them self-defense. I dont teach competition. Martial arts were made to defend yourself. A lot of schools teach you how to score points, but thats not real life. Competition can ruin a martial art. I teach how to defend yourself in a street-fight situation. Why do you buy a gun? Sure, there are a small number of people who want to be the best competitive shooter in the world, but for most of us, its for self-defense. And maybe that leads to competition, which is fine, but thats not why you signed up for a martial arts class or why you bought that first gun.

SI: What drew you to the NRA? How important is the Second Amendment to you?

Royce Gracie: TheNational Rifle Associationis the front line of keeping my right to keep and bear arms. Thats the way I look at it. I really respect the NRA, because I know from experience, from what happened to Brazil, how important the Second Amendment is. It is my right to defend myself, and the NRA makes sure that right will be there. Look what happened when they took those rights away in Brazil, in Venezuelait is vital to keep that right.

Want to take a class with Royce Gracie? VisitNRACarryGuardExpo.comtoday to sign up for the (limited-space) Brazilian jiu-jitsu class he will teach at the inaugural Carry Guard Expo in Milwaukee, WI, Aug. 25 to 27. Gracie will teach paying attendees several moves that could come in handy should you find yourself in a close-quarters criminal attack. He will also be signing autographs at the show. In addition, there will be seminars from world-class instructors like Steve Tarani, Travis Doc T and many others, so you wont want to miss the best event for those interested in self-defense.

Read more:
MMA Legend Royce Gracie On The Second Amendment - The Daily Caller

Congressman Chris Collins (NY-27) has proposed new measures for protecting Second Amendment rights by introducing legislation to limit states authority when it comes to regulating rifles and shotguns, commonly used by sportsmen and sportswomen.

The Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA) would prevent states from implementing any regulations on these weapons that are more restrictive than what is required by federal law. Upon passage of this bill, most of the language included in New York States Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act of 2013 signed into law by Gov. Andrew Cuomo would be void.

This legislation would protect the Second Amendment rights of New Yorkers that were unjustly taken away by Andrew Cuomo,Collins said.I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment and have fought against all efforts to condemn these rights. I stand with the law-abiding citizens of this state that have been outraged by the SAFE Act and voice my commitment to roll back these regulations.

Governor Cuomos SAFE Act violates federal regulation and the following provisions would be void under the proposed legislation:

-Cuomos SAFE Act expanded rifle and shotgun bans to include semi-automatic guns with detachable magazines that possess certain features.

-The Cuomo SAFE Act banned the capacity of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.It further limited magazines to seven rounds at any time.

In the Collins bill, States or local governments would not be able to regulate, prohibit, or require registration and licensing (that are any more restrictive under Federal law) for the sale, manufacturing, importation, transfer, possession, or marketing of a rifle or shotgun. Additionally, rifle or shotgun includes any part of the weapon including any detachable magazine or ammunition feeding devise and any type of pistol grip or stock design.

Under this legislation, any current or future laws enacted by a state or political subdivision that exceeds federal law for rifles and shotguns would be void. Should a state violate this law, and a plaintiff goes to court, the court will award the prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorneys fee in addition to any other damages.

Congressman Collins was joined today by local, county, and state elected officials and citizen supporters of the Second Amendment during events to unveil his bill in Erie and Monroe counties.

Hamburg Rod and Gun Club:

Assemblyman David DiPietro

Erie County Sheriff Tim Howard

Erie County Comptroller Stefan Mychajliw

Erie County Legislator Ted Morton

Representatives from SCOPE

Rochester Brooks Gun Club:

Senator Rich Funke

Senator Rob Ortt

Assemblyman Peter Lawrence

Monroe County Legislator Karla Boyce

Representatives from SCOPE

To read the text of H.R. 3576, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act, clickhere.

See the original post:
Collins proposes new measures for protecting Second Amendment rights - Wyoming County Free Press