Category Archives: Second Amendment

Things that should not be abridged.

Starting in September, Texas will allow you to open-carry swords. The state already allows you to carry around blades shorter than 5.5 inches, but this fall that restriction will be lifted and Texans can get their saber on.

I think thats great. Seriously. I am totally cool with the right to bear swords. Its an originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment. A sword is way closer to an 18th-century musket than any of the sub-assault-pocket-Uzis turning our country into a shooting gallery today. If you could get people to turn in their guns to receive a personally crafted sword, Id vote to melt down the Intrepid for steel and enslave Hitori Hanzo to do the work.

Guns kill innocent bystanders. The only innocent bystander ever to be killed by a sword was Polonius, and Hamlet felt super bad after that happened. Guns kill indiscriminately. Swords kill their intended target. If we accept that in an free society, some killing must be done in the fight for scarce resources, swords are tactical weapons while guns are weapons of mass destruction.

And while were here, lets remember that a sub-5.5 inch knife is probably way more deadly than a freaking broadsword. Christ. An enemy will make you look like a bloody sprinkler system in the time it takes for you to unsheathe your katana. Youre not a damn Jedi. If Texas is already allowing knives (and guns!), then nobody is made less safe by toting around a sword. Once the F-150 comes out with stab-proof seating, nothing will even be significantly damaged by these things.

I dont know that you can ever go back again. I dont know that you can ever get rid of all the guns lurking in our country. But our country made a wrong turn when we broadly interpreted arms to include rapid-fire hand-held artillery units, as opposed to something limited to personal stabbing weapons and slow reload rifles.

Hannibal didnt need guns. Batman doesnt need guns. Guns are for cowards. If you want to defend your people, you should be limited to the ax aisle at Walmart.

New Texas Law To Allow Open Carry Of Swords, Machetes [CBS Dallas-Fort Worth]

Elie Mystal is an editor of Above the Law and the Legal Editor for More Perfect. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.

Read more here:
Open-Carry Swords: A Civilized Second Amendment Right - Above the Law

Washington Post

Mo Brooks: 'Second Amendment' | Campaign 2018 Washington Post July 24, 2017 1:14 PM EDT - Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), who is running for Alabama's Senate seat in a special election primary on Aug. 15, released a campaign video invoking the GOP baseball practice shooting in June. (Mo Brooks for Senate) ...

Continue reading here:
Mo Brooks: 'Second Amendment' | Campaign 2018 - Washington Post

Second Amendment

Posted July 26, 2017 8:40 am CDT

By Debra Cassens Weiss

Shutterstock.com

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 on Tuesday that the restriction violates the Second Amendment because it amounts to a total ban on the right to carry a gun for most residents. The Wall Street Journal (sub. req.), Reuters and the Washington Post covered the decision (PDF).

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, Judge Thomas Griffith wrote for the majority. Traditional restrictions include licensing requirements, but not special-needs requirements, he said.

The Second Amendment erects some absolute barriers that no gun law may breach, Griffith wrote.

At least four other federal appeals courts have upheld similar restrictions, while a fifth has recognized a constitutional right to carry a gun outside the home, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The Washington, D.C., gun law says the police chief may issue concealed carry permits to those who show good reason to fear injury to his person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol.

To show good reason, applicants have to show evidence of specific threats or previous attacks that demonstrate a special danger to the applicants life. District regulations interpret other proper reason to include employment involving the transportation of cash or valuables.

Washington, D.C., is considering asking the full court to hear the appeal, which had consolidated two casesWrenn v. District of Columbia and Grace v. District of Columbia.

More:
Restrictive concealed carry law violates Second Amendment, DC Circuit rules - ABA Journal

Attorney General Ken Paxton recently joined West Virginias amicus brief inRobinson v. United Statesalong with Indiana,Michigan, and Utah in the United States Supreme Court to protect against unjustified frisk searches occurring on the suspicion that a citizen is armed. The basis for this search places a burden on the Second Amendment right to carry a firearm.

In 1968,Terry v. Ohiodetermined that a law enforcement officer may both stop and frisk an individual when specific and articulable facts lead an officer to reasonably believe criminal activity is occurring. This search is justifiable when the officer believes the detained individual is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or others. However, anen bancFourth Circuit recently interpretedTerryto require only a reasonable suspicion that the individual is armed. This interpretation allows officers to justify a frisk search solely on the suspicion of possessing a weapon during a lawful stop, regardless whether there is a reasonable belief that the individual is dangerous.

The Fourth Circuit interpretation places an unlawful burden on Second Amendment rights. The Constitution plainly guarantees law-abiding citizens the right to bear arms, whether through open or concealed carry, said Attorney General Paxton. We must ensure the Court continues to protect the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.

Let us know what you think in the comments.

Read more here:
AG Paxton Joins Others in Supreme Court Brief to Protect Second Amendment Rights - eParisExtra.com (blog)

FAIRFAX, Va. The right to self-defense scored an important victory on Tuesday when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down Washington D.Cs unconstitutional restrictions on issuing concealed carry permits. Today's ruling in Grace v. District of Columbiabuilds on the landmark Supreme Court case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

The Second Amendment protects the fundamental, individual right of Americans to not only keep arms, but also to bear arms. D.C. residents have suffered under a near total ban on their right to carry a firearm for self-defense, said Chris W. Cox, executive director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. Todays ruling is an important step toward protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.

The decision overturns D.C.s requirement that citizens prove they have a good reason to obtain a concealed carry permit. For the overwhelming majority of permit applicants, this results in ade factoprohibition on their right to carry a firearm for self-defense.

In the majority decision, Judge Thomas Griffith wrote At the Second Amendment's core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home", and that "The good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on most D.C. residents right to carry a gun in the face of ordinary self-defense needs.

Governments should not be allowed to take constitutional rights away from law-abiding citizens, Cox concluded. This decision demonstrates that the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense is clearly protected by the Second Amendment.

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. More than five million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services. Be sure to follow the NRA on Facebook at NRA on Facebook and Twitter @NRA.

View post:
Court Strikes Down Unconstitutional Ban on Concealed Carry - NRA ILA

A recent questionable claim we fact-checked stemmed from a discussion about whether to ban assault weapons.

Clickbait websites love to make up fake quotes for celebrities and controversial politicians, hoping to mislead readers into clicking into their content and seeing their ads.

For instance, we recently fact-checked a post accusing former Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., of saying something she didnt say; we rated it Pants on Fire.

Now, as part of Facebooks efforts to fight fake news, we learned that users had flagged as questionable a post from someone Bachmann used to babysit for -- former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson. (Yes, the babysitting part is actually true.)

The claim about Carlson appeared first on a site called therightists.com. It was headlined, "Gretchen Carlson: The 2nd Amendment Was Written Before Guns Were Invented. "

Within days, the item was picked up and reprinted essentially verbatim on other websites. One version got 31,400 shares through July 24.

The accompanying article uses as its launching-off point something that Carlson did actually do -- making an on-air break with conservative orthodoxy by saying, in the wake of the Orlando nightclub mass shooting in 2016, that the assault-weapons ban should be reinstated.

"Do we need AR-15s to hunt and kill deer? Do we need them to protect our families?" she asked on air. "Cant we hold true the sanctity of the Second Amendment while still having common sense?"

These comments drew opposition from gun-rights supporters. Its at this point that the article veers off into fabrication.

The article reads, "Interestingly, when confronted by Second Amendment supporters on Twitter, Carlson doubled down on her pro-ban stance, claiming that the fact that youre even using the Second Amendment as an argument against banning assault weapons shows me youre ignorant. Dont you know the 2nd Amendment was written before guns were even invented? "

This would be a ridiculous claim if shed actually said it.

As schoolchildren are taught, muskets were used in the American Revolution. (Heres an example from the collection of the Museum of the American Revolution.) And the revolution occurred more than a decade before the 1789 drafting and ratification of the Bill of Rights, which includes the Second Amendment. ("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.")

Indeed, the history of firearms goes back even further than that -- to the 1300s, more than four centuries before the Second Amendment was written.

The first hint that this may be bogus appears elsewhere on therightists.com website. On the sites "About Us" page, a grammatically challenged warning explains that therightists.com "is independent News platform That allow People and independent Journalist to bring the news directly to the readers. Readers come to us as a source of independent news that not effected from the big channels. This is HYBRID site of news and satire. part of our stories already happens, part, not yet. NOT all of our stories are true!"

Of course, this warning isnt noted on the actual page the Carlson story appears on.

We also couldnt find any credible news source reporting Carlsons words as cited in therightists.com article.

Finally, we checked with Carlsons office. In a statement, her office confirmed that the article was "total B.S."

Bottom line: Carlson did not say, "The 2nd Amendment Was Written Before Guns Were Invented." The accusation that she did rates as Pants on Fire.

Share the Facts

2017-07-24 19:53:16 UTC

1

1

7

Pants on Fire

Say Gretchen Carlson said, "The 2nd Amendment Was Written Before Guns Were Invented."

various websites

Thursday, June 15, 2017

2017-06-15

Go here to read the rest:
No, Gretchen Carlson didn't say 2nd Amendment written before guns invented - PolitiFact (blog)

A federal appeals court on Tuesday blocked the District from enforcing strict limits the city has in place on carrying concealed firearms on the streets of the nations capital.

In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said the Districts system that requires a good reason to obtain a permit is so restrictive that it is essentially an outright ban in violation of the Second Amendment.

The good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on most D.C. residents right to carry a gun in the face of ordinary self-defense needs, wrote Judge Thomas B. Griffith, who was joined by Judge Stephen F. Williams.

Bans on the ability of most citizens to exercise an enumerated right would have to flunk any judicial test.

The courts rejection of the Districts gun-control measure is the latest legal blow for city officials who have been forced to rewrite regulations ever since the Supreme Court in 2008 used a D.C. case to declare a Second Amendment right to gun ownership.

In her dissent on Tuesday, Judge Karen L. Henderson said the Districts regulation passes muster because of the citys unique security challenges as the nations capital and because it does not affect the right to keep a firearm at home.

The ruling from a three-judge panel gives city officials 30 days to decide whether to appeal for review by a full complement of D.C. Circuit judges. If the court does not agree to revisit the case sitting as an en banc panel, the order would take effect seven days later.

[Appeals court questions D.C.s restrictions on concealed carry of firearms]

Residents who want a permit to carry a concealed firearm in D.C. must now show that they have good reason to fear injury or a proper reason, such as transporting valuables. The Districts concealed-carry rules are similar to those in New Jersey, New York, Maryland and in some jurisdictions in California.

The Supreme Court has turned down several opportunities, including in June, to decide whether such regulations are constitutional.

At oral arguments in September, the D.C. Circuit was reviewing two challenges to the citys law that resulted in conflicting opinions and was asked to decide whether the citys permitting restrictions could remain in place while the broader challenge to the law is litigated.

District officials told the court the restrictions are necessary in a city that struggles with gun violence and faces heightened security challenges because of the number of federal government buildings and public officials.

Gun rights groups and Republican attorneys general from more than a dozen states told the court that the Districts system is unconstitutional because the typical law-abiding citizen could not obtain a permit.

View original post here:
Appeals court blocks enforcement of District's strict concealed-carry law - Washington Post

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the Bill of Rights.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

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.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Excerpt from:
Second Amendment rights - The Constitution

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, relating to the right of people to bear arms, was enacted as part of the Bill of Rights, its ratification occurring on 15 December 1791 with the support of the Virginia Legislature.

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:

The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:

Both versions are commonly used by "official" U.S. government publications.

George Mason is considered the "Father of the Bill of Rights." Mason wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which detailed specific rights of citizens. He was later a leader of those who pressed for the addition of explicitly stated individual rights as part of the U.S. Constitution.

Read the original post:
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikiquote

Fairfax, Va. A group of Maryland citizens, with the support of the National Rifle Association, filed a petition to the United States Supreme Court on Friday seeking to reverse aCourt of Appealsrulingthat stripped some of Americas most popular rifles of Second Amendment protection.The 4thCircuit ruling in the case Kolbe v. Hogan is a direct contradiction of the Supreme Courts 2008 decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, which re-affirmed American citizens right to self-defense.

Lower courts have been making up their own rules when it comes to the Second Amendment for too long, andtheKolbe decisioncrossed yet another line, said Chris W. Cox, executive director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. The popular rifles and standard magazines banned in Maryland are some of the best tools for self-defense. We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will reverse this egregious decision.

InFebruary, the4thCircuit Court of Appeals ruled the Second Amendment does not protect the most popular rifles in the country including AR-15s as well as all standard capacity detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

The petition asks the Supreme Court to confirm that its ruling inDistrict of Columbia v. Hellerprotects the most popular semiautomatic rifles and magazines.

By holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to common firearms and magazines, the4thCircuit has gone further than any other courtinattackingSecond Amendment freedoms.

Marylands ban on commonly owned rifles and magazines is unconstitutional.The National Rifle Association will continue to fight for all Americans Second Amendment rights.

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. More than five million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services. Be sure to follow the NRA on Facebook at NRA on Facebook and Twitter @NRA.

Original post:
NRA-ILA | Supreme Court Asked to Review Maryland's Gun Ban - NRA ILA