Gun Control: Legitimate concerns about Second Amendment issues
We Keep Our Guns? In the last century, scores of millions of defenseless civilians were slaughtered by
totalitarian regimes that first disarmed them. Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China, the Ottoman Turks, and
several dozen other despotic regimes committed mass murder of millions upon millions. Historically, genocide follows
confiscation of arms as surely as day follows night. In order to foster the deterrence of tyranny in American
government, the Founders ratified the Second Amendment, acknowledging the unalienable right of the people to bear arms.
The published statements of the Founders clarify their points of view with regard to their purpose for acknowledging that
right. They clearly meant for the people not to be impeded from owning weapons similar to the ones used by government
forces, so that any future despots might be deposed by an armed populace.
A 'backdoor violation of the Second Amendment' 122
gun dealers were stripped of their licenses by the ATF. Gun dealers have lost their
licenses this year at an unprecedented rate, with critics accusing Joe Biden of undermining the
Second Amendment by stealth. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
has revoked the licenses of 122 gun dealers in the fiscal year that began in October. The
previous fiscal year the figure was 90, and in 2021 it was only 27.
Man Who Saved the Second Amendment. In recent weeks, federal courts have begun to
nullify a number of gun control laws on the grounds they violate the Second Amendment. In the
Western District of Oklahoma, judge Patrick Wyrick found that prohibiting marijuana users from
owning guns is unconstitutional. The Fifth Circuit Court concluded that people subject to
domestic violence restraining orders cannot be compelled to surrender any weapons they own. A
federal district court in West Virginia ruled that the federal law which makes it a crime to
possess a firearm with an altered, obliterated or removed serial number is unconstitutional.
The tide at last has turned: two-hundred and thirty-two years after its ratification, the federal
courts are finally starting to take the Second Amendment seriously.
Request Uncovers FBI Effort to Get Americans to Forfeit 2nd Amendment Rights. A Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) request by Gun Owners of America (GOA) secured release of information surrounding a form which was used by the
FBI in an effort to secure forfeiture of Second Amendment rights. Ammoland.com warned of the FBI effort in 2019,
after GOA discovered the "NICS Indices Self-Submission Form" in December 2019. The form gave Americans the
opportunity to "voluntarily" give up their Second Amendment rights, allowing no means by which the forfeited rights
could be resecured. GOA filed a FOIA suit for information related to the form and its use by the FBI.
Rittenhouse Trial Underscores the Left's Determination to Eliminate the Natural Right of Self-Defense. To what
extent does man have a natural or God-given right to self-defense and protection of himself and his property? This
question has been bandied about for thousands of years and that issue, not guns (which are an instrument of self-defense), is
at the heart of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The United States is the only nation in the
annals of mankind to be established on the basis of a political and social philosophy centered on natural, or God-given,
rights. Among these are self-defense and property. Property rights are the bedrock of the American political
system; without that foundation, there is no freedom. The Founders held that property rights encompass not just
physical property but also one's life, labor, speech, and livelihood, as individuals own their own lives; therefore, they
must own the products of that life which can be traded in free exchange with others. Further, as there is a natural
right of self-preservation, man has the right and duty to defend himself against transgressors, including the state, that
would deny, abrogate, or unlawfully seize his property.
You Need To Know About Today's Gun Rights Case In The Supreme Court. Today [11/3/2021], for the first time in
more than a decade, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case involving the Second Amendment. While the
appeal in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen concerns the constitutionality of New York's
restrictive concealed-carry permitting system, the high court's analysis will prove as important as the ultimate outcome.
rights showdown — Supreme Court case a potential big win for Second Amendment. On Wednesday
[11/3/2021], the Supreme Court will take up arguably the oldest and most controversial right in our history. New
York State Rifle Association v. Bruen is the first major gun rights case in over 10 years to come before the
Supreme Court and it has the makings of a major gun rights victory. The case concerns concealed-carry restrictions that
require a showing of "proper cause." Lower courts have upheld the New York law, but there are ample constitutional
concerns over its vague standard, such as showing that you are "of good moral character." New York wants to exercise
discretion in deciding who needs to carry guns in public while gun owners believe that the law flips the constitutional
presumption in favor of such a right. There are few constitutional rights that have been debated so long in this
country as gun rights. Indeed, before other Englishmen were given a written guarantee of the right to bear arms,
colonists in Virginia in 1607 were given such a written guarantee by the Crown. Since that time, the right to bear arms
has been an ingrained part of our culture and ultimately our Constitution.
Italics added by The Editor.
of vaccination required to retain your right to life. Mark my words: soon we will need a vaccine
passport/proof of vaccination to purchase a firearm. To the tyrants, that's a twofer. They will either force
individuals to get vaccinated or deny them the right to protect themselves. You know they are getting incredibly
aroused just pondering that idea. They tend to believe that most unvaccinated folks are uneducated redneck rubes from
flyover states, NRA members, Trump supporters, Republicans, the uneducated and uncaring. This notion, however, is
simply incorrect. The elites have already masterfully used COVID-19 to dramatically increase their own power, and their
hold on itmin perpetuity, while boldly stealing power and God-given rights from the people. What a coup it would be if
they could also use the pandemic to skirt the Second Amendment! They will tell us firearm ownership is a privilege, not
a right. Progressives blur the distinction between privileges and rights like they blur the distinction between males
and females, truth and fiction and reality and fantasy.
Excoriated for Claiming Racism [is] 'Foundational' to [the] Second Amendment — 'Embarrassment to Your Own
History'. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) faced an online backlash Sunday [7/25/2021] after
publicizing claims racism is "foundational" to the Second Amendment and its inclusion in the Bill of Rights. Critics
accused the civil rights group of spreading misinformation and abandoning its own founding principles. In a recent ACLU
"At Liberty" podcast episode, historian Carol Anderson, a professor of African American Studies at Emory University,
explained how "anti-blackness" determined the decision to include the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights and informed its
"unequal and racist enforcement over the last several hundred years."
Top Ten Pending Eruptions. [#7] Not only is our 1st Amendment being challenged, so is the 2nd Amendment.
These are lines we cannot cross and yet every time there's a shooting the ante ratchets up another notch and we all know that
if the 2nd Amendment goes, the 1st disintegrates and without those we have no freedoms of any kind. This assault on our
freedoms of speech is made worse by the power of the mega-media and its desire to shut us up. It's a relief to see some
states staking out their ground on this issue. Sooner or later we'll see a three-way face-off amongst states' rights,
federal overreach, and Big Tech.
Second Amendment: More important now than ever. The tyrants are in charge, and they want your guns.
While the left has denied it for decades, anyone who pays attention knows that the ill named "progressives" want to totally
eliminate the Second Amendment. Period. The so-called "red flag" laws popping up around the country, as well as
the gun-hating zealot nominated by Biden to head the ATF, are just two examples of Marxism's accelerated drive to disarm
law-abiding citizens. It won't be long before the Democrats attempt to push through a gun registration law, always the
final step before total confiscation. We can't allow this to happen.
Things to Know About Second Amendment's Return to Supreme Court. It's been well over a decade since the Supreme
Court last decided a meaningful Second Amendment case. That wait is about to end. Although District of Columbia
v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) answered some foundational questions about the right to
keep and bear arms, the Supreme Court's decade of silence enabled lower courts to undermine these core cases routinely.
This in turn allowed states to run roughshod over the Second Amendment. We've gotten our hopes up before that the
Supreme Court finally would stop treating the Second Amendment as a second-class right, unworthy of consistent legal
review. Just last term, the high court excited millions by taking up New York State Rifle & Pistol v. City of New
York, which was about New York City's incredibly restrictive laws on transporting firearms. That excitement came to a
crushing end when New York City enacted minor changes to its laws and the Supreme Court declared the case moot, declining in
the interim to take up any of the remaining Second Amendment challenges for the term. Many suspected we might go
another decade without seeing the court hear another challenge to gun control laws.
Will Decide Whether the Right to Bear Arms Extends Beyond Your Doorstep. While it may seem obvious that the
constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" extends beyond the home, federal courts have been debating that question for
years. This week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that could finally settle the issue, which the petitioners
call "perhaps the single most important unresolved Second Amendment question." The case involves a New York law that
requires applicants for handgun carry licenses to show "proper cause," which according to state courts means more than a
"generalized desire" to "protect one's person and property." Applicants must "demonstrate a special need for self-protection
distinguishable from that of the general community," which in practice means that ordinary New Yorkers have no right to armed
self-defense once they leave their homes. The vast majority of states are less demanding, typically requiring that
people who want to carry concealed handguns meet a shortlist of objective criteria. But several states have laws like
New York's, enforcing subjective standards such as "good cause" (California), "proper purpose" (Massachusetts), "justifiable
need" (New Jersey), "good and substantial reason" (Maryland), or a special "reason to fear injury" (Hawaii).
Signs Bill Making Oklahoma a Second Amendment Sanctuary State. Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt on Monday
[4/26/2021] signed into law a bill that makes the state a Second Amendment Sanctuary State. [...] The new law, also known as
the "Second Amendment Sanctuary State Act," or SB 631, would prevent any lawmakers in the state from infringing upon the
right of an Oklahoma citizen to keep and bear arms, by preventing them from enacting any new laws or regulations related to
arms and ammunition. It would also prevent any buy-back, confiscation, or surrender of firearms, firearm accessories,
or ammunition from abiding citizens of Oklahoma. Any such order, rule, policy, or regulation by any federal, state,
county, or municipality, would be considered an "infringement on the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms as guaranteed
by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution
of Oklahoma," according to the text of the legislation.
Court to take up major Second Amendment concealed handgun case. The Supreme Court said Monday [4/26/2021] it
will consider how much protection the Second Amendment provides for carrying a gun outside the home. The case is the
first time in more than a decade that the court has agreed to take up a central issue of the gun rights debate, something it
has consistently ducked since issuing a landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 that the Second
Amendment provides an individual right to keep a handgun at home for self-defense. The court agreed to hear a challenge
to a New York state law that allows residents to carry a concealed handgun only if they can demonstrate a special need beyond
a general desire for self-protection.
Biden Said The Bill of Rights is NOT "Absolute". Earlier today Joe Biden raised some eyebrows when he said "no
amendment to the constitution is absolute." The first ten amendments to the constitution are commonly known as "The Bill of
Rights." The occupant of the oval office, and head of the executive branch, saying the Bill of Rights is not absolute,
should be challenged immediately to qualify that statement.
Declares Second Amendment Not 'Absolute'. In a press conference Thursday, President Biden unveiled the proposed
executive orders on gun control. "Nothing I'm about to recommend in any way impinges on the Second Amendment" Biden
declared. Addressing potential opposition, Biden added, "they're phone arguments suggesting that these are Second
Amendment rights in what we're talking about." In an immediate contradiction, Biden then stated his position that "no
amendment to the Constitution is absolute." How can you not impinge upon something that is not absolute? Biden
attempted to give an example by saying "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded movie theater and call it freedom of speech."
As his example pertains to the Second Amendment, he said, "from the very beginning of the Second Amendment existed, certain
people weren't allowed to have weapons." Biden's administration announced six gun control initiatives.
Gun Laws Are Unconstitutional. We all do it. We'll share a pro-gun piece from a news source that's
normally anti-gun and get a good laugh out of how, say, the New York Times is making a pro-gun case. More times than
not, though, those are op-eds which don't reflect the official position of pretty much anyone else at the paper. [...] The
problem with this kind of rhetoric isn't that it's wrong — clearly, it's not — only that the only
people who will accept such an argument aren't the people you need to convince in the first place. People who either
support gun control or will consider supporting gun control aren't going to be swayed by this. They know the amendment
says "shall not be infringed," they just figure that the Founding Fathers didn't really mean that, or they buy into
the idea that since the militia is now the National Guard, that's what they intended. Regardless, simple
arguments about the unconstitutionality of gun control aren't likely to be accepted by any of the people who need to be convinced.
short primer on the importance of our Second Amendment rights. Joe Biden's had a lot on his plate. First,
he erased America's immigration laws by order government employees not to enforce them. Then he destroyed the economy
by attacking the oil and gas that are essential for modern life. After that, he sowed some racial discord. Next,
he insulted our only ally in the Middle East while sucking up to "Death to America" Iran. And that's just the shortlist.
But the people in charge haven't forgotten one of their most important missions: To destroy the Second Amendment.
Gun Rights Don't Come from
the Second Amendment. Whenever there is a gun massacre, statists inevitably respond that it's time to repeal
the Second Amendment. The idea is that if the Second Amendment is gone, so will be the right to own guns in the United
States. There is just one big problem with that position: It's wrong. The Second Amendment, like the First
Amendment, doesn't give anyone any rights. Instead, it prohibits the federal government from infringing on rights that
are natural and God-given and that preexist government. The Declaration of Independence sets forth the essential
principles. Every person (i.e., not just American citizens) is endowed by nature or God with fundamental rights.
These include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thus, given that people's rights are natural and God-given,
they preexist government. The rights come first and the government comes second.
Very Right to Keep and Bear Arms Is on the Ballot This Election. Democrats will "confiscate your guns and
appoint justices who will wipe away your Second Amendment," President Trump warned in his recent acceptance speech for the
Republican presidential nomination. He's right. Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris has promised
to use executive orders to ban guns, and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has promised to make former Congressman
Beto O'Rourke (D-TX) his gun czar.
the Left Can Abolish the 2nd Amendment in Days not Decades. Though at times Democrats won't admit it, they are
actively making plans to impose extreme gun control and even abolish the 2nd Amendment. These Leftists claim the 2nd
Amendment is why we can't go to school, or work, or a house of worship, or a nightclub, or a movie theater, or a music
festival, or pretty much any public gathering without fear of getting shot to death. They further claim the 2nd
Amendment is how law enforcement justifies the need for military-grade armaments — to match the "firepower" they
meet in the streets. The 2nd Amendment is why we have a generation of young people that are scarred or missing from gun
Hannity [is] Wrong on Armed Michigan Protestors. One of the constitutional freedoms liberals are trying to use
the Wuhan virus pandemic as an excuse to shred is the Second Amendment's guarantee that our right to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed. There is no asterisk indicating an exception in case of pandemic, so when law-abiding gun owners show
up to protest a government's attempt to infringe on their rights, why should they not show up with the weapons the government
is trying to curtail their use of, even take them away if the liberals could. Which part of "bear arms" does Sean
Hannity not understand? [...] Critics of the Second Amendment say that they are not going after guns used for legitimate
activities such as hunting. But when the Founders wrote the Second Amendment it was because the British were coming,
not because it was the start of deer season.
Not Guns: New Jersey Suspends Second Amendment; Gets Sued. Firearm ownership may be guaranteed under our
Constitution by the Second Amendment. But it's secondary at best to the New Jersey officials who've closed down gun
stores during our Wuhan flu panic, calling them non-essential. Now two Garden State officials — who some
would say are non-essential themselves — are being sued for trampling constitutional rights. "The case was
filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and the New Jersey Second Amendment Society on behalf of Robert Kashinsky and Legend
Firearms, a gun shop in the state," reports WND.com. "Defendants are Gov. Philip D. Murphy and State Police
Supt. Patrick J. Callahan." "'Gov. Murphy cannot simply suspend the Second Amendment, and neither can
Supt. Callahan,' said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb," WND continues. "Yet, under this emergency order, that's
exactly what they're doing. The Constitution, and federal law, don't allow that. New Jersey may have been the
first state to ratify the Bill of Rights, but they're the last state to recognize it."
Are on the Precipice of Incrementally Losing the Second Amendment. The far-left politicians and media are sadly
winning the gun control argument by framing every suicide, every mass shooting, every gang crime as gun violence instead of
what they are. San Francisco has labeled the NRA a terrorist organization and many Americans agree with that extreme
and outlandish viewpoint, even some Republicans, according to Rasmussen. Possibly unconstitutional laws like Red Flag
laws are being instituted throughout the nation. Both represent the incremental destruction of the Second
Amendment. We are in the danger zone and could lose the Second Amendment.
Biden on the Second Amendment: No amendment is 'absolute'. Joe Biden is calling for a cultural shift
around how the country thinks about gun ownership. "The Second Amendment — no amendment is in fact
absolute," Biden told the Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund's Presidential Gun Sense Forum Saturday in Des Moines, Iowa.
Call The Liberals' Second Amendment Militia Bluff. The whole "shall not be infringed" part is a real problem
for the left, since collectivist Castro-channelers prefer that we Americans be defenseless serfs existing at the government's
(i.e., their) mercy when we should be armed, freedom-loving citizens with the personal firepower to veto their pinko utopian
schemes. So, they fixate on the 2A's passing reference to the militia, spinning a prefatory statement that recognizes
that a militia is a good thing into a directive to cancel out the whole "citizens having guns" part of the Second Amendment.
In other words, to defeat its very purpose.
Harris Wants To Ban AR-15s With Executive Order. Before she was a United States Senator, Kamala Harris was the
attorney general for the state of California. She's an attorney, like so many other legislators. She studied and
worked in the profession people approach for clarification on the laws of this great nation of ours. Apparently, she
managed to get to that point without ever attending a single civics class. In the presidential hopeful's latest effort,
she's decided that in her quest to dictate gun control by fiat, she'll also go after AR-15s and other so-called "assault rifles."
Amendment supporters rejoice as Supreme Court decides to hear a critical case. The case, New York State Rifle &
Pistol Association Inc. v. New York City, at a minimum will decide whether or not a New York City law that limits
residents' ability to transport their guns outside of their homes is constitutional. Currently, residents in that city
can carry a licensed (if they can get one), locked and unloaded handgun to one of seven shooting ranges within city limits,
but nowhere else, including homes or shooting ranges outside of the city. [Larry] Keane is worked up because lower
courts have been disagreeing with each other over basic gun rights questions for years. Some courts have even ruled
that a local government can ban the most popular firearm design sold today — semiautomatic firearms —
just because some are cosmetically different than others.
to bear arms. The Second Amendment protects the natural right to keep and bear arms; the same type of arms that
crooks and thugs might use against you; and the same type of arms that government agents might use against you. We all
know that the police can't be everywhere. We also know that the first thing tyrants do when they come to power is to
disarm the population. Sometimes tyrants are jackbooted thugs. Sometimes tyrants are the majority in an elected
government. But to the framers of the Constitution, an armed population is the best defense against tyranny. And to
those who understand the right to self-defense and the history of its use in America, we know that more guns means less crime.
the Second Amendment Apply Outside Your Home? The Second Amendment makes it very clear that its purpose is to
protect the right to keep and bear arms. In fact, it says the right "shall not be infringed." Of course, our
right to keep and bear arms has been infringed for years at this point. To make matters worse, the very courts that are
supposedly there to protect our rights have joined in on the effort to curtail them. Earlier this month, one such court
decided to up the curtailment by claiming that the Second Amendment doesn't exist outside your home. Yes. Seriously.
2 New Court Decisions
are Quietly Eliminating Californians' Second Amendment Rights. Two new federal court decisions highlight a harsh new
reality: California has effectively repealed the Second Amendment inside its borders. In the first case, decided yesterday [5/9/23018],
a district judge ruled against the National Rifle Association's state affiliate in a challenge to onerous new California rules targeting
popular semi-automatic rifles. That 2016 law, signed by Gov. Jerry Brown (D), is called the Assault Weapons Control Act.
"Even an outright ban on certain types of semiautomatic weapons does not substantially burden the Second Amendment right," wrote Judge
Josephine Staton, a Barack Obama appointee in Santa Ana, California.
Amendment Is Absolute': D.C. Student School Walkout Organizer Says We Must 'Regulate the Second Amendment'. A
small group of mostly high school students gathered in front of the White House on Friday [4/20/2018] as part of the National School
Walkout, an anti-gun protest launched by a Connecticut teen following the shooting deaths of 17 people at a Florida high school
in February. Following a moment of silence plus 13 seconds to honor the 13 people shot and killed at Columbine High
School on April 20, 1999, the group walked to the Capitol where speakers lashed out at Republicans and the National Rifle
Is a Militia, Anyway? [The Second A]mendment is perfectly clear to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding
of English. Yet in recent decades, it has become the source of lies, distortion, and obfuscation by assorted opponents of
the Bill of Rights who claim that only members of a militia may own guns. They include federal judges, left-wing activists,
the politicians they support, and assorted anti-gun nuts in academia and news organizations. They [...] spread demonstrable
nonsense about the Bill of Rights. Most of them, unlike the mawkish teens pumping their fists like Weathermen at a Viet Cong
rally, are real grown-ups in coats and ties, many with law degrees and lots of official-sounding titles that make them seem like
authoritative folks who really know what they're talking about. But they don't. The ACLU, for example, in its
hallucinatory interpretation, claims that "the people" in the amendment refers not to persons, but to state governments and
their power to establish militias. The left-wingers there do not explain how a description of state powers
ended up in a list of things called the "Bill of Rights."
the Second Amendment for Just the Militia? Our United States Constitution serves two distinct purposes. The first is
to explicitly enumerate the powers and procedures of our nation's central government, which was defined as the three distinct bodies
(which, by the way, two thirds of the high school students currently lecturing us about the Second Amendment cannot name) — the
Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial, with levels of authority descending in that precise order. The second is to
explicitly enumerate the limitations of that central government's power, which is the sole reason why our Bill of Rights
exists. The Constitution would not have been ratified in 1791 without the addition of these first ten amendments.
Therefore, our Constitution would not exist without the limitations to our central government's authority described therein.
the Second Amendment falls, our entire Bill of Rights falls. The startling new proposal by 97-year-old former
Supreme Court Associate Justice John Paul Stevens calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment to our Constitution's Bill
of Rights is unwise, dangerous and totally unrealistic. For 227 years, the amendment has guaranteed that "the right of
the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." We should not abandon it. The first 10 amendments to the
Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. These amendments are the foundation of our liberty and the lasting legacy of the
Founding Fathers who so wisely created a Constitution designed to protect the freedom of generations far into the future.
These rights are a major factor in what makes America an exceptional nation and a beacon for freedom that attracts people from
the world over.
Stevens' Dishonest Attack On The Second Amendment Must Be Taken Seriously. Former Supreme Court Justice John
Paul Stevens has an op-ed in the New York Times today where he agrees that the case against firearms made by a crew of
ill-bred cretinous teens is so powerful that the Second Amendment should be abolished. There is a lot wrong with the
article. The errors are so glaring that it is hard to attribute them to mere carelessness and not to a deliberate
attempt to deceive.
Want To Repeal The First And Second Amendments. Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, a
liberal appointed by establishment Republican President Gerald R. Ford, yesterday penned an op-ed in the New York Times
calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment. Calling the Second Amendment a "relic of the 18th century" Stevens
wrote that the "March for Our Lives" demonstrators "should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should
demand a repeal of the Second Amendment." This call for the repeal of the Second Amendment is a significant extension of
Justice Stevens' previous position stated in his judicial opinions and even his 2014 book "Six Amendments: How and
Why We Should Change the Constitution" wherein he suggested that the Second Amendment be rewritten to read: ["]A
well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when
serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.["] Liberal-leaning pundits were quick to embrace Stevens' call for
repeal, and polling shows that there is significant support for such a move among Democrats.
King: Repeal 2nd Amendment... It Was Passed To Fight Off Slaves. Larry King has an interesting tidbit for why the
Second Amendment should be repealed — and it's got to do with what he says is the real reason it was created ...
to fight off slaves. We got the ex-talk show host Wednesday at E. Baldi in Bev Hills, where we asked what he thought of
former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens' NYT op-ed calling for the amendment giving Americans the right to bear arms to be
repealed. Larry says he's completely on board, adding that the antiquated provision needs to be rewritten due to unclear
language ... and also, because it's "real" purpose is moot now.
'The 2nd Amendment Is Being Very Badly Interpreted' — There Is 'Prostitution of the 2nd Amendment'.
During a discussion at the University of Pennsylvania on Thursday, former Vice President Joe Biden stated that the 2nd Amendment
has been interpreted "badly" and the nation has decided it can't ignore the "prostitution" of the amendment. Biden said, "I think
there's a 2nd Amendment. I think the 2nd Amendment is being very badly interpreted. It's not consistent with what
they're — our founders intended, in my view. You saw Justice John Paul Stevens say that we should — because
it's been so prostituted, we should repeal the 2nd Amendment. It was about a standing militia. It's a long story.
I won't go into all the legal side of that having taught it in law school. But there's rational or irrational policy."
for Our Lives' Leaders Deny They Want to Repeal Second Amendment. Leaders of the "March for Our Lives" anti-gun protest
movement scrambled Tuesday [3/27/2018] to distance themselves from an op-ed in the New York Times by former Supreme Court
Justice John Paul Stevens calling for the Second Amendment to be repealed. In the op-ed, Stevens wrote that in the wake of
last weekend's nationwide protests, "the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should
demand a repeal of the Second Amendment."
Former Supreme Court
Justice: Repeal the Second Amendment. Gather round, fellow paranoid gun rights supporters. Leftists
claim they don't want to strip us of our Second Amendment rights. Saying we're absolutely bonkers for assuming
so. Even though they admit it. No, according to the left, gun owners worried about their Second Amendment rights
are a mere baby-step away from being full-on schizo.
Supreme Court justice: 'Repeal the Second Amendment'. Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is calling
for a repeal of the Second Amendment, decrying the right to bear arms as outdated and misunderstood. In an op-ed
published by The New York Times, Stevens, a Republican, said that students and anti-gun violence advocates should press
lawmakers to take on the amendment. While protests have so far focused on implementing new restrictions on semi-automatic
weapons and strengthening background checks for gun purchases, he wrote, repealing the Second Amendment would result in more
Laws and the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of our Constitution exists for our protection against a
tyrannical government and the self-defense of our God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I have
been mocked publically for stating this truth as if I am a "nut" for thinking I need protection against our very own
government in this day and age. The Second Amendment is about protecting our future, and it acts as a mighty deterrent
to prevent tyranny. I find it interesting that those that call our current president a tyrant and warn that he is like
Hitler don't have a different view on the Second Amendment? We must be cautious and objective and look at the entirety
of an issue before legislating an inalienable and constitutionally protected right. A constitutional right is an
entirely different thing than government legislated privileges such as driving a car or purchasing alcohol.
Not Give An Inch On The Second Amendment. [A]s liberals line up behind a shield made of children to march on
the Second Amendment, it's important to remember what happens when you attempt to compromise with people whose ultimate goal
is your obliteration and why no amount of compromise will ever be enough. [...] There is no compromise with someone who
doesn't want you to exist, there is only incrementally losing ground until you no longer exist. A right diminished will
never return, government does not cede back power once seized. The NRA is right to hold its ground, it's why the
organization exists in the first place. Liberals are not honest brokers when it comes to the issue of guns, and neither
is the media. Trying to appease leftists never works because nothing short of everything they want is ever enough for them.
Sales Skyrocket As Gun Owners Brace For An All-Out Assault On Our Second Amendment Rights. Every time the left
goes into a gun grabbing frenzy, gun sales always end up going through the roof. In the aftermath of the recent tragedy
in Florida, we are seeing an all-out assault on our 2nd Amendment rights like we haven't seen in decades. Politicians
from both parties are pushing for new gun control legislation, and as a result gun owners all over the nation are feverishly
stockpiling weapons and ammo while they still can. In fact, Google searches for "buy a gun" and "buy AR15" both just
hit the highest levels ever recorded. At a gun show down in Tampa, Florida over the weekend, nearly 7,000 people showed
up on a single day. The Republican governor down there has turned out to be a gun control nut, and so true
conservatives are buying guns while they still can.
Contemptible American Left. My life's experience has reinforced the concept that the right to bear arms is the
foundational basis of preserving and protecting freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and private property. The socialist
oligarchy the left is determined to establish in America requires that that fundamental right to be dramatically eroded and
under the thumb of a central authority. I immigrated to the United States from a continent that had nearly destroyed
itself in World War II. The war was the end product of the ascension to power of various egomaniacs, steeped in
socialist-Marxist ideology, determined to amass all political power within their countries. Once elected to office, these
despots began to centralize their authority and eliminate all individual freedoms and democratic institutions. As they lived
in nations that historically did not allow unfettered gun ownership, the people were incapable of stopping the inexorable seizure
of power, and many paid the price as nearly 40 million were killed and untold millions displaced during the war.
Hard Against Liberal Attacks on Our Gun Rights and Other Civil Liberties. We're now supposed to give up our
guns because it's the 21st Century, people, and the cops will totally protect us and oh, you can't dare criticize the FBI for
failing to disarm yet another ticking time bomb and what kind of crazy nut would expect a police officer to actually confront
a gunman? Show of hands: Who thinks this stops, even slows down, once those mean old not-actually-assault weapons
get banned? That liberals have taken a hard stand in favor of cowardice does not exactly fill one with confidence that
once we give up our Second Amendment rights that we'll be safer or freer.
at CPAC: Democrats 'Will Take Away Your Second Amendment'. President Trump warned CPAC attendees on Friday [2/23/2018] that
Democrats will take away tax cuts and the Second Amendment if given control of Congress. He said, "They will take away those massive
tax cuts and they will take away your Second Amendment."
Doug Jones: The Second Amendment Has 'Limitations'. Doug Jones, the Democrat running for Alabama's U.S.
Senate seat, says he loves to hunt but the Second Amendment has "limitations." He believes that every right enumerated in
the Bill of Rights is limited, and the Second Amendment is no exception. According to the Alabama Political Reporter,
Jones described himself as "a Second Amendment guy," but stressed that some gun control is necessary.
Thomas Calls Out The Supreme Court For Not Believing In The Second Amendment. Supreme Court Justice Clarence
Thomas had stern words for his colleagues when the Court declined to hear a case challenging California's handgun laws,
saying that the jurists do not understand the importance of self-defense. The case, supported by the National Rifle
Association, involves San Diego resident Edward Peruta, who challenged his county's refusal to grant him permission to carry
a concealed firearm outside of his home.
Thomas, Gorsuch blast court decision to reject gun rights appeal. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch issued a
scathing dissent Monday to a Supreme Court decision turning away yet another gun rights case. On a busy morning of decisions,
the court on Monday [6/26/2017] rejected a challenge out of California regarding the right to carry guns outside their homes, leaving
in place a San Diego sheriff's strict limits on issuing permits for concealed weapons. But Thomas, in a dissent joined by Gorsuch,
countered that the case raises "important questions" — and warned that Second Amendment disputes aren't getting the attention
they deserve from the Supreme Court. "The Court's decision ... reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment
as a disfavored right," they wrote.
Federal Court of Appeals Goes to War against the Second Amendment. What happens when you mix contempt for individual rights with a healthy
dose of willful ignorance and fear? You get the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court that's teaching the legal Left the recipe for attacking
the Second Amendment. Twice in less than a month, the court has radically restricted the constitutional rights of gun owners. In January, it
held that even lawful gun owners are inherently "dangerous" and can face limitations on their constitutional rights, including the right to be free of
unreasonable search and seizure, simply because they possess a gun.
Fourth Circuit Runs Roughshod over Heller and the Second Amendment. Freed up by the Supreme Court's ongoing reluctance to engage in depth with
the Second Amendment, the Fourth Circuit has taken it upon itself to rewrite Heller en banc. In a 10-4 decision, issued yesterday afternoon
[2/21/2017], the court upheld Maryland's ban on both "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines." By so doing, it deprived the people of Maryland,
the Carolinas, and the Virginias of the core protections to which the Constitution entitles them.
Court Strikes A Blow To The Second Amendment. A federal court just hammered away at the Second Amendment with
an asinine ruling with regard to waiting periods. The lawsuit, Silvester v. Harris, was filed over a
California law that required a 10-day mandatory waiting period for a person to obtain a firearm even if they already passed a
background check, have a concealed-carry permit and/or own a registered a firearm. The District Court initially ruled
that the law was unconstitutional. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the District Court's ruling,
claiming that the law provided "a reasonable safety precaution."
Guns Are The 'Last Form of Defense Against Tyranny'. When it comes to guns and the Second Amendment rap artist
and TV star Ice-T, who is liberal, does not pull punches and says that the right to bear arms is "the last form of defense
against tyranny," and that the right is not about hunting animals but about protecting oneself from an oppressive government.
Curtailing 2nd Amendment Help Protect U.S. from Terrorism? Rep. Foxx: 'No'. Rep. Virginia
Foxx (R-NC) said Wednesday that curtailing Americans' Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" will not keep the nation
safe from radical Islamic terrorism. CNSNews.com asked Foxx: "Will curtailing the Second Amendment right of
Americans to keep and bear arms protect this country from radical Islamic terrorism?" Foxx had a two-word answer:
American Left is Beneath Contempt. The United States has just experienced the worst terrorist attack on its
shores since September 11, 2001. Forty-nine innocent fellow Americans were wantonly slaughtered by a radicalized Muslim,
and traitor, who had pledged his allegiance to a foreign entity, ISIS, whose declared objective is the reinstitution of the
Islamic Caliphate and the butchery of western infidels. These victims were murdered primarily because they were in a
gay night club, thus subject to summary execution under Sharia Law, and secondly because they were Americans. Yet,
today nearly all of the voices from the Left, and their front group, the Democratic Party, choose not to focus on the victims,
the terrorist or the blood stained failure of their approach in dealing with radical Islam. Instead they are using this
tragedy to unabashedly pursue one of their primary ideological objectives: the de facto repeal of the Second Amendment.
California and the 9th Circuit's misrepresentation of the facts. Thursday [6/9/2016], the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 7-4 decision
that Americans don't have a right to carry concealed handguns for protection. Since California bans people from openly carrying guns, their decision amounted
to prohibiting people from carrying guns at all (whether openly or concealed). It is clear that a judge's political affiliation determines whether he
thinks that people have a right to defend themselves. Democratic judges are now moving to overturn recent Supreme Court decisions that struck down bans on
guns. Last year, about 0.24 percent of adult Californians had a concealed handgun permit. In the rest of the U.S., the rate was 24 times
higher, for a rate of 5.8 percent. In many parts of California, it is essentially impossible to get a permit. In San Francisco County, just four
people (0.0005 percent of the adult population), got a permit in 2015. That is an improvement over 2012, when just two permits were granted —
one of which was to the sheriff's personal attorney.
Circuit Paves The Way To Ending Gun Rights: Ben Shapiro. On Thursday [6/9/2016], the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals issued a ruling stating that there is no right under the Second Amendment to carry concealed weapons in public. This,
of course, is surprising, given that the actual language of the Second Amendment explicitly declares the right to "bear arms" —
and bearing arms means carrying them. But the Court truly just wants to allow localities to regulate firearm ownership out of
existence, or like practice of religion, to restrict the right to the privacy of your home.
Court of Appeals Attempts to Repeal the Constitution. Though the Supreme Court is probably reluctant to take on
another gun case at the moment, this case is headed that way. In a ruling that reverses a previous ruling by a smaller,
three-judge panel, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has decided that a California law requiring "good cause" to apply for
concealed carry permits should stand, and also said the Second Amendment does not apply to concealed carry.
Kasich Spits on the Second Amendment. The Heller
decision, confirming that the Second Amendment acknowledges an individual right to keep and bear arms, written by the late Supreme Court
justice Antonin Scalia was in many respects the Roberts court's finest hour. In its acknowledgment that rights are inherent, not
granted by government Heller is constitutional originalism at its finest and Scalia at his incisive and eloquent best. But
someone on his staff apparently forgot to tell Ohio Governor John Kasich about just how important Heller is to limited government
constitutional conservatives because over the weekend he told CBS News that if he were elected President he would consider appointing to
the Supreme Court the judge whose decision Heller overturned.
Owners of America: Senators Must Tell Obama That His "Supreme Court Pick is D.O.A.". Today, President Obama
took the most significant step in his sordid journey to fundamentally transform our nation. Obama nominated a virulent
anti-gunner to fill the seat of Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. Let's be clear: the U.S. Senate should bury
this nomination and write "Dead On Arrival" as its epitaph. Despite promises to nominate a consensus candidate, Obama has
chosen a radical leftist in Judge Merrick Garland: [#1] He supported the DC gun ban in 2007, voting to reconsider the
Heller case after a three judge panel had ruled against the ban. [...] [#2] In a 2000 case, Garland voted to maintain the
registration of gun owners, supporting efforts by the Clinton administration to use the instant check to illegally retain gun
owners' names for six months.
Why we oppose Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination. In 2008, the Supreme Court answered the question of
whether individual citizens have a right to own a firearm in their homes for self-defense. It was [Antonin] Scalia who
wrote the majority opinion in that case, District of Columbia v. Heller. That landmark decision made clear that
the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. Shockingly, the decision was only
5 to 4. Two years later, in McDonald v. Chicago, Scalia joined Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s
opinion holding that that individual right is fundamental and applies to all Americans regardless of where they live.
Once again, the decision was 5 to 4. With Scalia's tragic passing, there is no longer a majority of support
for Heller and McDonald among the justices.
The Living Constitution
And Second Amendment Alarmism. With the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the American philosophical
divide has been thrown wide open, particularly on the issue of gun control. One side that believes the Constitution means
what it says and can be readily understood by the common man, warns that if the ideological balance on the Court could shift from
a bare majority that usually interprets the Constitution based on its text and the clear intentions of the founders, to the
current minority that would regularly make law based on progressive desires alone. The other side is warning that establishing
a larger constitutional majority on the Court would result in the Court deciding cases more regularly on the text of the Constitution
and the intent of the Founders. [...] It is no small irony that the President will surely nominate someone dedicated to the ideology
of a "living Constitution," which can best be understood as a Constitution that has no fixed, understandable meaning or intent.
It means whatever Progressives want it to mean for their transitory political purposes. Of one thing, however, we can be
absolutely sure: if the living Constitution ideology ever gains a majority of the Court, the Second Amendment is dead.
'The Second Amendment Says You Can Limit Who Can Own A Gun'. Vice President Joe Biden says "the Second Amendment says you can
limit who can own a gun." In an interview with CNN's Gloria Borger on Monday [1/11/2015], Biden said, "people who are criminals
shouldn't have guns. People who are schizophrenic and have mental illnesses shouldn't have guns."
Real Reason for Gun
Control. One of the most controversial measures is Obama's idea that the act of selling even a single gun effectively
makes you a gun dealer and subject to federal registration. We're not quite sure the executive office can promulgate directives
for individuals. [...] A normal person looking at the Second Amendment would probably conclude that it means what is says —
that government cannot stop people from buying, selling, owning and using weapons. But in introducing the caveat "reasonable
regulation," the Court probably left the argument as muddy as before. And Obama, late in his second term, is not one to miss
right to bear arms isn't up for debate. When debating the wisdom of the Constitution's Second Amendment, the media tends to start
from the presumption that the question is purely scientific, and that the answers can — and should — be derived from
statistical analyses and relentless experimentation. This approach is mistaken. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is
not the product of the latest research fads or exquisitely tortured "data journalism," but a natural extension of the Lockean principles on
which this country was founded. It must be protected as such. The Declaration of Independence presumes that all men enjoy certain
inalienable rights, among them "life" and "liberty." Practically speaking, at both the state level (as a bulwark against tyranny) and
at the individual level (as a means by which to protect oneself), this necessitates the auxiliary right to the private ownership of "arms,"
which, in the common law that preceded the Second Amendment, was understood to include personal weapons that could be wielded by an
individual — such as the "musket and bayonet"; "sabre, holster pistols, and carbine"; and sundry "side arms."
The Second Amendment Is One Supreme
Court Justice from Repeal. In August, my colleague Charlie Cooke wrote an epic rant daring the Left to stop talking about repealing
the Second Amendment and start doing it. Introduce the repeal to Congress, work it through the states, and tell the American people what you
want to do — take from them a fundamental, enumerated right from the Bill of Rights. As Charlie eloquently outlines, repealing
the Second Amendment is an impossible task. Even worse for the Left, it's political suicide. But if the Supreme Court's decision in
Obergefell v. Hodges teaches us anything, it's that the age of judicial supremacy means that five justices can amend the Constitution
far more efficiently than Congress and the state legislatures.
Circuit Court: Illegal Immigrants Have Second Amendment Rights Too. In a case regarding a specific gun control
law which bans "unauthorized aliens" (illegal immigrants) from possessing firearms in the United States, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit did the work of a contortionist by upholding the law while also pointing out that they "see
no principled way to carve out the Second Amendment and say that the unauthorized (or maybe all noncitizens) are excluded."
In a word — illegal immigrants have Second Amendment rights too. The case was titled United States v.
Meza-Rodriguez, and the decision was handed down on August 20.
Court Rules Illegal Aliens Have Second Amendment
Rights. A recent decision by the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that says illegal aliens — what the left likes
to call "undocumented immigrants" — enjoy a Second Amendment right to bear arms, even if their presence in this nation is criminal.
The Editor apologizes for the thinly-redacted profanity herein: BuzzFeed
Editor Regrets Bashing 2nd Amendment of 'G**d*** Constitution'. In a tweet sent while
news of the tragic July 23 attack in Lafayette's Grand Theatre was still rolling in, BuzzFeed News
Editor Rachel Zarrell exclaimed, "Let's just give everyone guns, right? It's in the g*dd*mn
constitution." This tweet was preceded by one in which Zarrell wrote: "If this were someone
in my family I'd want every person alive screaming about gun control to anyone who would listen."
And another in which she tried to stir people to action: "Don't pray. Push for gun control."
Rove vs. the 2nd Amendment. Guns don't kill people, the Constitution kills people, at
least according to Karl Rove, Republican strategist and architect of George W. Bush's election and
reelection as president. Rove, speaking on Fox News Sunday, and in the wake of the South Carolina
church massacre, embraced the liberal mantra that there are too many guns on the street and went a step
further and a step too far, saying the way to avoid more such tragedies is to repeal the Second Amendment
and its guarantee of our right to keep and bear arms.
Mean the Founders Were Serious About That Second Amendment Stuff? That's what the
liberal ninnies at the Washington Post must be wondering right about now. Despite their best
efforts to stampede the American public into surrendering yet another of its consitutional rights (and one
very dangerous to the Leftist project), more and more states are moving toward — gasp! —
Constitutional Carry. Which means, basically, "shall not be infringed."
to Bear Arms Central to Liberty. There are two popular quotations from the writings of Thomas
Jefferson that have been shown to be still relevant to our culture. "When the people fear the government
there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty" and "The tree of liberty must be
refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Taken together they demonstrate
why the right to bear arms is central to keeping our individual liberty.
Justice Stevens: The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment.
[Scroll down quickly past 18 paragraphs of left-wing claptrap to get to the proposal:] As so amended, it would read:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed."
The Editor says...
The Second Amendment does not need fixing, but if it is to be revised, it should be made less ambiguous by removing any
mention of the militia; thus; The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Stevens thinks he knows how to 'fix' the Second Amendment. [Clayton] Cramer destroys Stevens' arguments
by citing several cases where the courts either explicitly or implicitly recognized that the Second Amendment dealt
with an individual's right to bear arms. I'm actually surprised that Stevens raised this old canard about the
Second Amendment referring only to a "well regulated militia." Besides, given his and most other justices
belief in the flexibility of the Constitution, it would seem a strange time for Stevens to get religion and become
a strict constructionist.
Justice Stevens and Flexible
History. Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens had an op-ed piece in the Washington
Post a couple of days ago that still has my brain doing backflips. He claims that, "Legislatures are in a
far better position than judges to assess the wisdom of such rules and to evaluate the costs and benefits that rule
changes can be expected to produce." Stevens certainly did not believe this when he signed onto decisions
overturning Texas's sodomy law, or when arguing that state laws limiting abortion were unconstitutional, or when
striking down Louisiana's death penalty for raping a child. So why is Justice Stevens suddenly so supportive
of the wisdom of legislatures compared to judges? That's for a simple reason: it's about the Second
Stevens: Fix Second Amendment to Remove "Any Limits" on Government Power. Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens supports gutting the
Second Amendment in order to remove any limit on government infringements on the right of self-defense.
In his new book Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, Stevens — who
generally favored maximum government power during his 35-year tenure on the high court — proposes,
among other things, changing the language of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so that the amendment
would read, "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms [when serving in the militia] shall not be
infringed." Stevens acknowledged in an interview Sunday that this would remove "any limits" on government
power over legal gun owners.
Court justice pushes gun grab, 2nd Amendment rewrite. A liberal former Supreme Court justice, still
outspoken and influential in retirement, is pushing to change the Constitution's Second Amendment in a way that
could lead to massive gun confiscations in states. John Paul Stevens, 94, who retired in 2010, would rewrite
the Second Amendment in a way that would allow only state militia members to be armed, a radical change from the
current lay of the land spelled out in several high court decisions. In his new book [...], being
played up in the media, Stevens would make clear that only militias, not citizens, have a right to guns.
Justice Stevens: Revising the 2nd Amendment 'Is a Moderate Proposal'. During an April 20th appearance on
ABC's This Week, former justice John Paul Stevens said each of his proposals to change the Constitution —
including his proposal to change the Second Amendment — "is a moderate proposal." On April 11th
Breitbart News reported that Stevens uses his new book, [...] to argue that we should add five words to the
Second Amendment to correct its interpretation — namely to ensure that it is interpreted as a collective
right rather than an individual one.
verdict — Mark Witaschek guilty of possessing muzzleloader bullets in D.C. In a
surprising twist at the end of a long trial, a District of Columbia judge found Mark Witaschek guilty of
"attempted possession of unlawful ammunition" for antique replica muzzleloader bullets. Judge Robert
Morin sentenced Mr. Witaschek to time served, a $50 fine and required him to enroll with the Metropolitan
Police Department's firearm offenders' registry within 48 hours.
surrenders to D.C. police 'Gun Offenders Registry'. Mark Witaschek never had a firearm in the
District of Columbia, but he is now on the city's Gun Offenders Registry. This bizarre case has drawn
national attention because an upstanding citizen was tried and convicted of possessing unregistered
ammunition for muzzleloader bullets, which are simply pieces of lead and copper.
Wants His Party to Officially Come Out Against the Second Amendment. The Daily Surge has a clip of Rep. Keith
Ellison (D-MN) on Bill Maher's HBO show. Ellison says the Democratic Party should just be honest about its stance on
guns. [...] For some reason, Americans murdered by drug cartel members along the border never came up.
Neither did the victims of Chicago's gang violence.
concealed weapon permits follows California court Second Amendment decision. Orange and Ventura counties have dropped the "good
cause" standard for issuing conceal carry permits after the requirement was struck down Feb. 13 by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeal.
A three-judge panel of the court ruled 2 to 1 that the Second Amendment bars California counties from requiring law-abiding gun owners
who want to carry concealed firearms to demonstrate special, individualized needs for protection.
Justice Stevens: Let's
Amend the Second Amendment! Retired Justice John Paul Stevens was one of the great mischief-makers in the history of the U.S.
Supreme Court. At age 93, he has now written a book in which he recommends six amendments to the Constitution. Presumably these
are the changes he wasn't able to implement the easy way, via a 5-4 vote on the court. One of Stevens' proposed changes relates
to the Second Amendment, and is intended to reverse Stevens' loss in the Heller and McDonald cases.
Connecticut Gun Owners Deliver a
Message — 'No we won't'. Did you know that citizens of one state engaged in a mass act of civil disobedience that has left statist
officials from both parties scratching their heads as an entire regulatory scheme collapsed? Last week, Connecticut politicians were shocked to find
out that only a fraction of Connecticut gun owners obeyed a state directive to come forward, declare their weapons, and register them with the government. [...]
Would you register with the government before speaking? Before attending worship services? Government that goes too far loses its legitimacy,
and in their peaceful act of civil disobedience, Connecticut citizens have rendered an unjust law utterly irrelevant.
Ninth Circuit Recognizes Right to Bear Arms
Outside the Home. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday [2/13/2014] that the Second Amendment endows the right to carry a gun
outside the home. The opinion comes days before the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to review two other cases that ask the question of
whether the right to "bear arms" extends beyond the home.
the Second Amendment. In a massive display of civil disobedience, tens of thousands of state residents have refused to register what the
left calls assault weapons, instantly making them criminals guilty of a felony.
The American Right to Revolt Against Tyranny: Part C — Founders & John Locke.
The Founding Fathers were in favor of the right to revolt against tyranny. This is obvious despite widespread current attempts by progressives to suggest armed
revolt and the 2nd Amendment would be opposed by the Founders today. But how logical would be the notion that Americans could own guns, but not use them to defend
themselves? Or that Americans could arm to defend their lives and liberties, but only against invaders — not against tyrants? Of course, such a
position is transparent nonsense.
Beck: If Police Get Drones, 'The 2nd Amendment Is Absolutely Dead'. Senator Rand Paul's media tour following his
"misunderestimated" statements on drones brought him to Glenn Beck's radio show Friday, where the two men discussed the prospects
of a terrifying future where police cars have "robotic firing arms" that take down criminals with the push of a button. If that
ever happens, Beck told Paul, "the Second Amendment is absolutely dead."
Biden Mocks the Basis of Second Amendment.
This guy is the vice president, the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and supposedly a leading Democratic expert on gun issues.
And yet, he doesn't understand the Second Amendment.
crumbling as gun-control victories spread. The Second Amendment got attacked this week from three sides, leaving gun
owners scrambling to find safe ground. While President Obama has lost momentum for federal gun-control laws, he has picked up
victories with his allies in blue states and at the United Nations.
War Against the Second Amendment Has Only Just Begun. In an interview with Jason Mattera which was conducted last
month but is just now hitting the news, Democratic Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky admitted that the Democrats' effort to ban "assault
weapons" is "just the beginning." In addition, Schakowsky says that she wants to ban all handguns, and thinks this can
constitutionally be done, despite the Second Amendment. I think it is obvious that Schakowsky was only saying what a great
many Democrats believe.
Court Refuses State AG: Concealed Carry Stands in Illinois. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected Illinois
Attorney General Lisa Madigan's request "to reconsider a ruling that found the state's concealed carry weapons ban unconstitutional
[in Dec. 2012]." Madigan has argued that the December ruling overturning the ban was in conflict with other appeals court
rulings and that it went beyond what the Supreme Court required.
Democide. In Turkey, "reasonable"
gun control laws enacted in 1911 permitted the democide of two million Turkish Christians a few years later. In Germany, the
"commonsense" 1928 gun control laws of the Weimar Republic preceded Hitler's Holocaust by a decade. The Weimar politicians
did not intend for their gun control laws to lead to the slaughter of millions of people, but it is an historical fact that those gun
control laws permitted the Nazis to carry out their Holocaust. How? By making it economically and militarily feasible to
round up and mass murder entire towns without any significant resistance. In fact, the Nazis quickly learned that they
needed only a hundred ordinary military policemen to exterminate towns of a thousand Polish Jews in a single day.
WA Dems Sponsor Bill Allowing Police to Search
Gun owners' Homes. In a mistake that probably wasn't a mistake, a Washington state bill sponsored by liberal Democrats contained a little-noticed
provision that would have called for the police to have the right to search private citizens' home once per year if they own certain types of guns.
Why Americans Need Assault Rifles. Reams of paper have been produced
supporting or disparaging this or that about the 2nd Amendment, and brighter men than me have argued both for and against it, but
my view is that the Founders of the Republic had a nation like Switzerland in mind. While gun control advocates are keen on
comparing the US to the UK, Canada and Australia, nations that ban guns in most cases, they tend to ignore Switzerland.
Switzerland does not have a professional army and instead relies upon civilians to participate and train in a militia. The
Swiss are issued an assault rifle, currently the SIG SG 550, a fully automatic weapons that even US gun nuts can't easily get
their hands on. The Swiss also have a very weak central government, something I believe the Founders preferred but became an
idea that got lost after the North won the Civil War.
The Second Amendment is Not about
Hunting. Our Founding Fathers' perspectives are just as important and relevant today as they were more than 200 years ago
because the nature of man hasn't changed over time. The world is still full of people who would enslave us and compel us to do their
bidding if they could. Our nation's capital is still loaded with elected officials who believe they know what's best for the rest of us,
and they are willing to use whatever force is necessary to subjugate us and make us fall into line behind their way of thinking even if it
violates our constitutional rights. [...] As unappealing as this possibility is, the day may come when we will need our weapons to fend off
an overreaching and tyrannical government, as our Founding Fathers knew could happen.
Rahm Emanuel Goes
After 1st And 2nd Amendments. A 15-year-old girl who performed at the president's inauguration is gunned down by gangs less
than a mile from Barack Obama's home. What does Chicago's mayor do? He blames banks who lend gun makers money.
The Purpose of the Second Amendment.
In all the talk that has happened and will happen, the press and the general public seem willing to ignore the actual purpose of the
second amendment. The amendment is not about sports. It is not about recreation. It is not about hunting. It is
only partly about defending yourself from a criminal. The second amendment is about ensuring a "free state."
February 23 Will Be A Day of Resistance.
While Barack Obama is calling for Americans to give up their freedom, their rights, and their guns, we're calling for Americans to resist.
We're calling on Tea Partiers, moderate Republicans, Libertarians and even moderate Democrats to stand up one month from today, on the 23rd of
February and say, "No more!" [...] It'll be a Day of Resistance where gun owners and patriots can peacefully gather and show Barack Obama, the
media, and the knockkneed Republicans in Congress that we may have lost a battle last November, but we haven't lost the war. Don't
meekly give up your 2nd Amendment rights when you can stand with us and RESIST!
The 2nd Amendment
Is What Makes The Other Nine Possible. As debates over firearms simmer and President Obama mulls sweeping firearm
restrictions via executive orders, media personalities like Piers Morgan dismiss guests defending gun rights with contempt.
You'd think resistance to disarmament amounts to culpability for the Sandy Hook slaughter.
New York Declares War on the Second
Amendment. The Ruger, Walther P22, and Smith & Wesson target pistols all use magazines with capacities of 10 or more, and
their principal purpose is to make holes in pieces of paper at up to 50 yards. New York has therefore just made it eminently
clear that the Constitution does not even protect sporting uses of firearms, let alone the Second Amendment's primary intention of
individual, collective, and national self-defense. This should mobilize all supporters of the Bill of Rights to deploy all
necessary legal, nonviolent, and socially acceptable methods to take these enemies down decisively and permanently.
Advice on the Second Amendment.
The trigger for the American colonists' revolt at Lexington and Concord in 1775 was their belief that the British intended to seize their
gunpowder, which would then enable the military to repress the populace at leisure. Stephen P. Halbrook's The Founders' Second
Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms (2008) documents the thinking at the time of the American Founding, and it wasn't focused on
the right to shoot ducks.
Preserving the Second
Amendment. [Scroll down] Those words, "executive orders, executive action," used in conjunction with constitutionally
protected rights and liberties, ought to alarm us all. They used to frighten Barack Obama. On Oct. 2, 2007, then-Sen.
Obama railed against what he called the abuse of executive powers purportedly perpetrated by President George W. Bush in his
administration's efforts to protect the American people from acts of terror by radical Islamists. Apparently, the current
occupant of the Oval Office has overcome his early concerns about chief executives exceeding their authority.
Americans, never give up your guns.
These days, there are few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains:
the right to bear arms and use deadly force to defend one's self and possessions. [...] For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the
US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from
maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position.
is Under Attack, not just the Second Amendment. On Wednesday [1/9/2013], Rasmussen Reports released the results of a poll revealing
that only "74% of American Adults continue to believe the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of an average citizen to own a gun."
This finding is perplexing because the Constitution hasn't changed.
More states look for ways to control gun
laws. A growing number of states are aiming to keep Uncle Sam's hands off their weapons if Congress decides to stiffen
gun-control laws in response to last month's deadly shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. Eight
states — Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and Wyoming — have adopted laws in recent
years that would exempt guns made in the state from federal regulation as long as they remain in the state, according to Jon Griffin
of the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Three completely unrelated news stories that
vintage media somehow forgot to report. [#2] Dianne Feinstein's true stated goal is the unconstitutional confiscation of all
firearms from civilians: [...] "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up [every
gun]... Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in." Note she doesn't mention the Constitution as an obstacle; only the vote tally. As
Obama's economic policies make ever more Americans dependent on government largesse, vote tallies will soon cease to be a problem for
authoritarian statists like Feinstein.
Wyoming Lawmakers Propose 'Gun Protection' Legislation.
Several Wyoming lawmakers are proposing legislation designed to protect gun-owners from any potential federal firearm ban. The "Firearms
Protection Act" bill, introduced this week, would make any federal law banning semi-automatic firearms or limiting the size of gun magazines
unenforceable within the state's boundaries.
The great guns debate: Grabbers rise anew.
Post-Sandy Hook, the great debate over guns has sunken to new levels of deceit and misrepresentation, all in the name of unconstitutional
gun-grabbing. Consider legislation being proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein. The California Democrat seeks to dishonestly redefine
"assault weapons" — heretofore machine-gun-type weaponry banned nearly 30 years ago — to be just about any weapon that
liberals think looks especially menacing or they simply don't like. She proposes measures clearly in violation of the Second Amendment.
We Must Control the Second
Amendment Conflict. The side that controls the language of an argument controls the argument, and the side that takes
and maintains the offensive controls the entire conflict. The enemy must then react to our actions instead of making us react to
his, and continue to react until he is no longer capable of fighting. We are indeed at war with an adversary with whom good faith
and win-win negotiation are not possible.
Fair: Second Amendment 'Must Be Removed from the Constitution'. On January 2, Vanity Fair ran an all-out attack on the
constitution, the 2nd Amendment, and common sense in a column by Kurt Eichenwald titled, "Let's Repeal the Second Amendment."
Eichenwald's approach consists of attacking the NRA, arguing that gun owners avoid discussing more gun control by saying they don't want
to "politicize" shootings, and taking the standard progressive position that there wasn't really a right to keep and bear arms until
Justice Antonin Scalia created one in recent Supreme Court decisions.
Why the 2nd Amendment.
Today's Americans are vastly better-armed than our founders, Warsaw Ghetto Jews and Syrian rebels. There are about 300 million
privately held firearms owned by Americans. That's nothing to sneeze at. And notice that the people who support gun control are
the very people who want to control and dictate our lives.
any of these slaughters have happened against an armed populace? let's keep the discussion simple, so that even a simpleton can
comprehend it. the 2nd amendment to the constitution of the united states is not about protecting "hunting rifles." it is about resisting
tyranny, and the oppression, violence and carnage wreaked upon a people by their government. it was the framers intent that an armed people could
resist such oppression, could fight against governmental murder. think for just a moment, if you are capable.
No capitalization in original.
of Mass Shootings: Mental Illness. Our government leaders, any many others, would have us believe that putting the kibosh to the 2nd Amendment
is the answer to rampant violence in the United States, particularly in the wake of recent shootings where innocent children and adult citizens have been killed.
It would seem that way. But it's really not the answer.
The N.R.A. Is Still
Vital, Because the 2nd Amendment Is. Today, with 4 million members, the N.R.A. is one of the largest civic organizations in the U.S., and by far
the largest civil liberties organization on the planet. On top of that, polls indicate that as many as 17 million more Americans consider themselves N.R.A.
members even if they haven't paid dues. (Perhaps, for example, because they took an N.R.A. gun safety class.)
The Real Second Amendment. [Scroll
down] The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was derived from our understanding of the British experience that militias were
necessary to curb the tyrannical powers of the king. In our case, 'well regulated militias' were necessary as a condition of the
colonies to agree to subordinate their sovereignty to a federal government. They wanted a guarantee of power to insure that some
future federal government could not egregiously exceed its powers prescribed in the body of the constitution they agreed to.
Furthermore, like the militias of the English barons, these state militias were formed ad hoc from the populace as needed on short
notice and therefore depended on the populace being already proficient in the art of arms.
Second Amendment at risk in second
term. Democrats just couldn't hold it together. With less than 100 days to go before the election, the left
let slip its vision of a second term for President Obama that will be the end for the Second Amendment.
The 2nd Amendment Transcends
the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. It's widely known that the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, being negotiated as I type, is simply gun control by
another name. Although it is being sold as a treaty to lessen the number of guns moving across borders illegally, it will ultimately require
a national gun registry to be enforceable: perhaps even an international gun registry. And while all of us should be contacting our
Senators to demand they refuse to ratify this ridiculous treaty when it comes before them, it behooves us also to remind them (and ourselves) that
the 2nd Amendment transcends any U.N. treaty at any time and any place in this country.
victory for the Second Amendment. U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg's groundbreaking March 5
ruling that Maryland cannot refuse to issue a handgun permit to an otherwise qualified individual unless that person
has an acceptable reason for wanting one is a jurisprudential gem that correctly shifts the burden of proof from the
citizen to the government. His elegant reiteration of basic Second Amendment rights in Woollard v. Sheridan
will be quoted for generations: "A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he
should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right's existence is all the reason he needs."
Since I don't need a good reason to own a gun, I'm
going to mention this to Santa Claus: New Israeli Machine Gun — The
NG7. Israel Weapon Industries recently unveiled its new NG7, a 7.62mm version of the venerable Negev
5.56mm light machine gun. ... The NG7 fires 850-1,050 rounds per minute on gas regulator position one and 950-1150 rpm
on position two.
judge says gun owners need not provide 'good reason,' rules Maryland law unconstitutional. Maryland
residents do not have to provide a "good and substantial reason" to legally own a handgun, a federal judge ruled
Monday [3/5/2012], striking down as unconstitutional the state's requirements for getting a permit. U.S.
District Judge Benson Everett Legg wrote that states are allowed some leeway in deciding the way residents exercise
their Second Amendment right to bear arms, but Maryland's objective was to limit the number of firearms that
individuals could carry, effectively creating a rationing system that rewarded those who provided the right
answer for wanting to own a gun.
severely limits Second Amendment rights. Over the last few years, the Second Amendment has experienced
somewhat of a rebirth, thanks largely to a pair of Supreme Court decisions: District of Columbia v. Heller and
McDonald v. Chicago. In these seminal decisions, the Supreme Court affirmed the understanding of the
Founding Fathers that there is indeed an individual right to keep and bear arms, a God-given right to protect oneself
that is guaranteed to us in the Second Amendment to our Constitution.
immigrants have no right to arms - court. Illegal immigrants do not have a right to bear arms
under the U.S. Constitution, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday [12/16/2011]. The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 8th Circuit, based in Missouri, rejected an appeal brought by Joaquin Bravo Flores, who
was charged with possessing a firearm. Agreeing with the 5th Circuit, the court concluded that the
protections of the Second Amendment do not extend to undocumented immigrants.
Chicago's gun grabbers. The federal judiciary is slowly coming to the realization that the
Second Amendment actually means the public can have guns. That's not sitting well with local
politicians in Chicago and Washington who are determined to keep the public disarmed.
Amendment Takes Double Shot in California. A double-whammy came down today against gun rights
advocates in California. First, the California Assembly voted to prohibit the open carry of unloaded
handguns. Current law had allowed unloaded weapons to be carried openly in public. "You are
disarming our citizens" while doing little to disarm criminals, said Assemblyman Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber.
"It is not just the right to keep, it is the right to bear arms," said Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Twin Peaks.
Suggests Second Amendment Out of Date. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, speaking this past
weekend on Fox News Sunday, declared that the Founding Fathers did not intend firearms to go unregulated.
Breyer was one of four dissenting justices in the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case, which
overturned a firearms ban in the District of Columbia. The decision in Heller was significant for many
reasons, primarily for holding that the Second Amendment was connected with not only the right of individuals
to bear arms, but also the power of state governments to maintain militia capable of resisting an oppressive
Justice Breyer Invent History to Justify His Personal Agenda? An oft-quoted maxim attributed
(dubiously) to Mark Twain instructs writers: "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story."
Perhaps Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has been reading the recently published diaries of Twain and has
been inspired to weave a little yarn of his own — a story strong on emotion but woefully light
Down the Constitution. Even a simple guy like me can figure out these words from the U.S.
Constitution: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." That's
contained in the Second Amendment. So why did four Supreme Court justices this week vote to infringe
on the right to bear arms? The court ruled 5 to 4 that 76-year-old Otis McDonald, an
African-American Democrat who lives in Chicago, can own a handgun.
Court Leans Toward Incorporation of Second Amendment. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments
yesterday [3/2/2010] in McDonald v. Chicago — the case challenging Chicago's handgun ban.
Judging from the transcripts, it looks like a majority of justices favor applying the Second Amendment to the
'Right To Bear Arms' Means Just
That. Otis McDonald, 76, an Army vet who lives in a high-crime area of Chicago, thinks the
Constitution gives him the right to bear arms to protect himself and his wife as he protected his country.
We think so too.
Which political party wants to take away your right to own a gun? Ohio Democratic Party
unsuccessfully tries to get gun records. The Ohio Democratic Party tried unsuccessfully this
week to get information on all people licensed to carry concealed weapons in the Buckeye State. The
state party sent letters to Ohio's 88 sheriffs requesting the names and addresses of permit holders and
the dates the licenses were issued. Ohio has about 211,000 permit holders.
Court Rules 2nd Amendment Does Not Apply in State. New Jersey ratified the United States
Constitution on December 18, 1787 — in fact, it was the third state to do so — but
an appeals court has determined that that does not necessarily mean that the state must uphold the rights
guaranteed by that Constitution. ... A New Jersey appeals court has concluded that Americans have no Second
Amendment right to buy a handgun. In a case decided last week, the superior court upheld a state law
saying that nobody may possess "any handgun" without obtaining law enforcement approval and permission in
From Guns to Butter.
Last week, the [Supreme] Court agreed to hear a Second Amendment challenge to Chicago's handgun ban. Since that
law is very similar to the Washington, D.C., ordinance that the Court declared unconstitutional last year, it is bound
to be overturned, assuming the Court concludes that the Second Amendment applies not just to the federal government
(which oversees the District of Columbia) but also to states and their subsidiaries. That seems like a pretty
safe assumption, since over the years the Court has said the 14th Amendment "incorporates" nearly all of the
guarantees in the Bill of Rights.
Guns and the Constitution:
The phrase "the right of the people" or some variation of it appears repeatedly in the Bill of Rights, and
nowhere does it actually mean "the right of the government." When the Bill of Rights was written and
adopted, the rights that mattered politically were of one sort — an individual's, or a minority's,
right to be free from interference from the state. Today, rights are most often thought of as
an entitlement to receive something from the state, as opposed to a freedom from interference
by the state. The Second Amendment is, in our view, clearly a right of the latter sort.
Why the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is Important
to You: Across our nation a debate rages about "gun control". This euphemism glosses over the fact that
what is being debated is one of the most precious guarantors of liberty, the right to keep and bear arms. At the heart
of this debate is not whether the right to keep and bears arms is an individual right or not, but at its core the debate is
over the primacy of the individual over the primacy of the government. This debate rages because many, too many, in
this country have forgotten, or, worse, have never been educated in, the nature of our rights.
Do We 'Keep and Bear Arms'? The Founding Fathers assumed that any government, including the one
they established, could grow into a monster. They argued that only "the people" with a right "to keep
and bear arms" could prevent such a tyranny. James Madison, the "father of the Constitution," stated
that tyrants were "afraid to trust the people with arms," and lauded "the advantage of being armed, which
Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation."
Rights Case Inches Toward Supreme Court. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is likely to
decide whether the Second Amendment's guarantee of a right to "keep and bear arms" restricts only the federal
government — the current state of affairs — or whether it can be used to strike down
intrusive state and local laws too.
Flaws. Supporters of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor claim that her Second Amendment rulings are
examples of "judicial restraint." The problem is that she's restraining the Second Amendment. Judge Sotomayor
has ruled twice that the right to keep and bear arms is not a "fundamental right." The second time was
after the U.S. Supreme Court said that it is.
Chicago Law Banning Handguns
in City Upheld by Court. A Chicago ordinance banning handguns and automatic weapons within city limits was
upheld by a U.S. Court of Appeals panel, which rejected a challenge by the National Rifle Association. The unanimous
three-judge panel ruled today that a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year, which recognized an individual right to bear
arms under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, didn't apply to states and municipalities.
Circuit Court Extends Second Amendment Rights. Believe it or not, the Ninth Circuit Court
ruled today that the second amendment restricts the powers of state and local governments to interfere
with the individual right to gun ownership. The decison even observes that the right to bear arms
is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." Notes Cato Institute's Ilya Shapiro, "I
rarely get a chance to say this, but the Ninth Circuit gets it exactly right."
California, There Is an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Today [4/20/2009] the Ninth
Circuit (the federal appellate court covering most Western states) ruled that the Second Amendment restricts
the power of state and local governments to interfere with individual right to have guns for personal use.
That is, the Fourteenth Amendment "incorporates" the Second Amendment against the states, as the Supreme
Court has found it to do for most of the Bill of Rights.
challenge state, local gun laws. A federal appeals court ruled Monday that private citizens
can challenge state and local gun laws by invoking the constitutional right to bear arms — the
first such ruling in the nation — but upheld a ban on firearms at gun shows at the Alameda
County Fairgrounds in Pleasanton.
Defies the Second Amendment. Since the Supreme Court upheld the individual right to own guns last
summer, one municipality after another with handgun bans has faced reality. Washington, D.C., which lost the case,
changed its law. Morton Grove, Ill., repealed its ban. So did neighboring Wilmette. Likewise for
Evanston. Last week, Winnetka followed suit. Then there is Chicago ...
Right to Bear Arms:
Washington, D.C., will become a safer place to live and work thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Thursday
[6/26/2008] against the city's absolute ban on handguns. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment's
guarantee of the right to bear arms is an individual right, not just one that permits states to maintain
militias, striking down one of the nation's toughest anti-gun laws. As someone who lived in the
District at the time the city imposed its ban 32 years ago, I say it's about time.
The Court defers to
plain language. No sulking conservative can imagine the Second Amendment would have been upheld
if Republican presidents had not appointed the five members of yesterday's majority. Who can doubt that
Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry and ol' Bubba would have appointed
judges dedicated to throwing out the constitutional guarantee upheld yesterday?
Bullet. The 2008 Supreme Court term ended with a bang yesterday as the Justices issued their
most important ruling ever in upholding an individual right to bear arms. The dismaying surprise is that
the Second Amendment came within a single vote of becoming a dead Constitutional letter.
Bill to limit governor's control of guns OK'd by
Senate panel. On a 4-2 party-line vote, the Republican-controlled Senate Government Committee
approved a measure Tuesday [6/20/2006] that would legally bar any [Arizona] governor from using a state of
emergency to place new restrictions on the possession, transfer, sales, carrying, storage, display or use of
firearms or ammunition. The bill also would remove any ability to commandeer and use weapons or
ammunition during any state of war.
It's a shame the states have to pass
laws that reiterate the Second Amendment. Constitution
protects our right to bear arms. The U.S. Supreme Court's recent affirmation of the "Right of
the People" to bear arms was long overdue. Our U. S. Constitution was written to guarantee that the
civil rights we have would not be abridged by any government entity. After the lessons learned from
the tyrannical rule of the British and the resultant Revolutionary War, the last thing our forefathers
wanted was a government that could remove our rights with the stroke of a pen.
Gun Ban Bill
Would Cripple the Second Amendment, Group Warns. Anti-gun Democrats are trying to make up for
lost time by reintroducing legislation intended to ban so-called "assault" weapons, a Second Amendment group
warns. Gun Owners of America says the "queen of gun control," Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), is trying
once again to outlaw many types of weapons based on their cosmetic features.
Rights and Presidential Politics: In the District of Columbia, it is a crime to have a handgun.
It also is a crime to have shotguns or rifles unless they are unloaded and disabled. Ordinary people cannot
have a gun, even in their own homes. Earlier this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
struck down the law as unconstitutional. The court said the Second Amendment does not allow a law like it
because it keeps Americans living in D.C. from exercising their Second Amendment rights.
The Second Amendment Wedge. Last
week the Supreme Court decided to take on the biggest gun control case in almost seventy years:
District of Columbia v. Heller. The Heller case is an appeal by the DC government from the US
Circuit Court's decision holding unconstitutional D.C.'s ban on privately-owned handguns and severe
limits on other weapons.
D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day
in Court. Despite mountains of scholarly research, enough books to fill a library shelf and decades of
political battles about gun control, the Supreme Court will have an opportunity this week that is almost unique for a
modern court when it examines whether the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment. The nine justices,
none of whom has ever ruled directly on the amendment's meaning, will consider a part of the Bill of Rights that has
existed without a definitive interpretation for more than 200 years.
9 Seem Set To Rule for Gun Rights. The U.S.
Supreme Court appears ready to acknowledge for the first time that the Second Amendment bestows on Americans
the right to possess guns. While many gun owners have long believed such a right to exist under the
Constitution, it has gone largely unrecognized by the federal courts.
rights is biggest issue for court to decide. The guns case — including Washington,
D.C.'s ban on handguns — is widely expected to be a victory for supporters of gun rights. Top
officials of a national gun control organization said this week that they expect the handgun ban to be struck
down, but they are hopeful other gun regulations will survive.
USA Today isn't too sure ... Do you have a legal right to
own a gun? Guns, and questions about how much power the government has to keep people from
owning them, are at the core of one of the most divisive topics in American politics. Nowhere is that
divide more pronounced than in the gap between Americans' beliefs about their rights under the Second
Amendment, and how courts have interpreted the law.
Give gun owners uniformity.
Why does USA TODAY object to uniform laws? The rules of safe driving don't change when you travel from a
state highway onto a federal one. Why should rules for gun owners change when they travel from a state
park to a federal park or wildlife refuge? As it is, gun owners who enjoy going afield in our parks face
a confusing nationwide patchwork of rules and regulations, governed by different agencies and bureaucracies.
It's inconsistent, burdensome and unnecessary. More than half the Senate agrees.
The DC Gun Ban: Gun rights
adhere to the American people, not to government-sanctioned groups. Rights, by definition, are
individual. "Group rights" is an oxymoron. Can anyone seriously contend that the Founders, who
had just expelled their British rulers mostly by use of light arms, did not want the individual farmer,
blacksmith, or merchant to be armed? Those individuals would have been killed or imprisoned by the
King's soldiers if they had relied on a federal armed force to protect them.
Isn't Self-Defense Common Sense?
[Scroll down] In last year's ruling, which the U.S. Supreme Court will soon review, the D.C. Circuit overturned
a Washington, D.C., gun law that bans possession of handguns in the home and requires that rifles and shotguns
be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." The law thereby effectively bars city
residents from using firearms for self-defense in their own homes. [Senator] Obama evidently considers
that de facto prohibition a "common-sense regulation," since he recently cited Washington's law as an
example of constitutionally permissible gun control.
The Armed Defense of Liberty: Despite the heroic
efforts of Sen. Bob Smith to turn it back, the latest batch of irrational and servile restrictions on the
Second Amendment continues to ooze its way through that allegedly deliberative institution, the
Congress. Perhaps because the gun control debate is now so entirely drenched in the emotive
sludge that is the principal intellectual food of our political establishment this seems a good moment
to recall the deep reasons, the fundamental context, that must inform any responsible deliberations
on the question of an armed citizenry.
Amendment Solidified: The Department of Justice issued an extensive
report that very clearly and definitely shows that the Second Amendment was intended
to protect an individual right. … The answer was definitive: "The Second
Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of states or a right
restricted to persons serving in militias."
Second Amendment rights upheld. A Warren County ship captain may carry a concealed weapon in New
Jersey waters and ports, state Superior Court Judge John Pursel ruled Wednesday [8/11/2004]. The judge
cited the post-Sept. 11 world of terrorist threats and the recent rise in the terrorist alert system
not the Constitution] as part of the reason for his decision to grant the carrying permit.
The world according to
Dick: The Second Amendment Sisters simply advocate a woman's "right to choose" to own and
carry firearms. But [New Jersey Senate President] Dick Codey thinks the government should make that
choice for them. He knows what's best for a woman.
Gunning for Your Gun
Rights: The United Nations' agenda may not be to overturn the Second Amendment
per se, but it has cleared a path for making enforcement of this constitutional
protection illegal under international law.
New Jersey to
Expand Seizures in Gun Cases. A New Jersey state assemblyman has introduced a
bill that would allow the government to seize the home or car of anyone whose property
contains an illegal firearm. In New Jersey, nearly every gun is considered "illegal."
Gun Control: The
assault weapon statute is purely cosmetic — banning guns because of politically incorrect
features such as bayonet lugs (as if drive-by bayoneting were a problem) or a rifle grip that
protrudes "conspicuously" from the gun's stock. Police statistics from around the
nation show that such guns are rarely used in crime.
Guns and Federalism: Members
of Congress who support gun rights are currently engaged in a dubious tradeoff: to save the Second
Amendment, they've decided to undermine the Tenth.
Restoring the Right to Bear
Arms: For decades, the Second Amendment was consigned to constitutional exile, all but erased
from constitutional law textbooks and effectively banished from the nation's courts. But no more.
Recent developments in the law and in political culture have begun the process of returning the amendment to
its proper place in our constitutional pantheon.
The Individual's Right to
Bear Arms: Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly
when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. We have held, without much ado,
that "speech, or … the press" also means the Internet, and that "persons, houses,
papers, and effects" also means public telephone booths.
It's the anti-gun people who are
nuts. This year's Pittsburgh NRA convention set an attendance record. Over the course of
the convention's weekend-long run, more than 61,000 people visited the booths, workshops and meetings.
And, unlike at recent rallies in American cities "celebrating" sports teams' victories, there wasn't a single
act of violence, not a single arrest, no wild drinking or drug-induced demonstrations. ... Come to think of it,
I suppose that's precisely why the convention generated so little attention from the so-called mainstream media.
Gun Control: The Criminal
Lobby. Gullible Americans are not rare. All that is required for a small wealthy elite to
destroy the Second Amendment is a gullible jury and a judge who permits a class action suit to expropriate the
powers of legislators.
Reviving the Second Amendment: On
Oct. 16, [2001,] in United States v. Emerson, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit joined the Bush
administration and respected legal scholars across the political spectrum in affirming the right that each of
us enjoy, as individuals, to own a gun.
How Ted Kennedy Opposes The Second
Amendment: When the history of the 20th century is finally written, one of its key features
will be the wanton slaughter of more than 170 million people, not in war, but by their own
government. The governments that led in this slaughter are the former USSR (65 million) and the
Peoples Republic of China (35 to 40 million). The point to remember is that these governments
were the idols of America's leftists. Part of reason for these and other tyrannical successes was
because the people were first disarmed.
Where Gun Control Is Going: It is
astonishing that the American people continue to fail to get their collective intellectual arms around the
absurdity and increasingly dangerous threat to human freedom that gun control represents. Banned by
the Second Amendment, restrictions placed upon government by the law of the land are blatantly ignored by
that very same government!
Residents Sue to Keep Guns in Home: Residents of the District of Columbia
have lived with some of the nation's most restrictive gun-control laws since 1976. Six of
those residents, who claim their safety is at risk because they can't defend themselves,
have sued the city to force a change in the law.
Sniper tips trigger firearms
crackdown: Gun advocates fear witch hunt by Montgomery County police… using the 100,000
tips called in during the October sniper terror investigation, reports the Washington Times.
D.C. Gun Law Under Fire: A
Second Amendment group is filing a lawsuit demanding that the nation's capital ease up its gun laws, which
are considered the most restrictive in the nation.
outlaws BB guns for minors: The BB gun, like the classic Red Ryder celebrated in a popular holiday
film, is a traditional Christmas gift that has always come wrapped in a certain risk. Now the toy
carries a threat that has nothing to do with putting an eye out: a $500 fine and two months in jail.
Control and Freedom: Thomas Jefferson said, "When governments fear the
people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
Agents "Miffed" that Gun Owner Contacted Media: Prior to the
capture of "Beltway Sniper" suspects John Allen Muhammad and
John Lee Malvo, an unconfirmed number of Maryland gun owners received surprise
visits from the FBI as part of the investigation. One such gun owner had a surprise
of his own for the agents when they arrived at his home.
and Violence: Did you know that water is 19 times more dangerous to a child
than a firearm? In 1996, 805 children died from accidental drownings and 42 died
from firearm accidents.
Gun bans don't
equal freedom: A couple of the West's democracies are behaving less and less
like the bastions of freedom they claim to be and more like authoritarian regimes rife with
little Napoleons who want absolute control over their respective masses.
LaPierre: 9/11 Windfall for
Anti-Gun Lobby: The anti-gun lobby wants you to surrender your freedoms in the name of
security. If Americans fall for it, they will get neither, a new book warns. "Smoke was curling
over the ruins of the World Trade Center when the gun-control lobby swung into action, seizing on that tragedy
to score points in the political arena," National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre and his predecessor
James Jay Baker write in "Shooting Straight: Telling the Truth About Guns in America."
Second Amendment Revisited: If the gun control lobby were really sincere
about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, they would welcome the Bush
administration policy, but there is no sincerity. The hysterical reaction is
all about not being able to ban the private ownership of guns. Again and again
their true intent becomes clearer: registration, gun bans, and finally confiscation.
The Second Amendment is Not Enough:
Pro-firearms advocates have been in a defensive posture for too long on this issue. Rather than forever
reacting to the threats by anti-gun advocates, pro-gun advocates should seek a legislative affirmation of the
individual's right to bear arms.
The Second Amendment Strikes Back:
Enemies of the right to self defense using guns, must argue that "the people" in the Second Amendment does not
refer to individuals, despite this interpretation everywhere else in the Bill of Rights when the
Founding Fathers referred to "the people."
The Terrible Fear That People May Exercise Their
Rights: On April 10  an Ohio appellate court unanimously ruled that Ohio's ban on
carrying concealed weapons, in effect since 1974, violated the people's right to keep and bear arms. The
appellate court also upheld a lower court's dismissal of the prosecution of a pizza deliveryman who carried a
handgun in his waistband for protection while making his deliveries. Since 1851, the Ohio
Constitution has said, "the people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security." In
striking down the ban, the court noted that the framers of the Ohio constitution "put the citizens' rights up
front. We believe they meant what they said." This ruling is a victory for the citizens of Ohio.
the case: The lawlessness of today's racial quota and gun control
liberals may be coming under serious challenge.
May Carry His Black Powder Rifle: The Second Amendment Foundation has hired an airplane to fly a
pro-gun banner over the crowd at Saturday's football game [9/7/2002] between the University of Wisconsin
Badgers and the West Virginia Mountaineers. "Guns save lives," the banner will read.
"Project Safe Neighborhoods" Violate the Constitution? A Bush administration program that calls
for federal agents to prosecute gun crimes runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution, some legal scholars
believe. "In actuality and despite what the federal courts have felt constrained to do, the federal
government has no more legitimate constitutional authority over gun crime that happens in one state than it
does over jaywalking or drunk driving," said Gene Healy, Cato Institute legal scholar.
More Injustice on the
Way: Gene Healy, a Cato Institute scholar, recently provided a thorough exploration of the
unintended consequences of the new Bush-Ashcroft plan to federalize gun crimes, known as the Project Safe
Neighborhoods program. The unintended consequences of this law are frightening.
Are Gun Control Opponents
Crazy? Reflect on this: Hitler was popularly elected. We know what happened in
Germany. Among his first actions was to impose restrictions on gun ownership "For the safety of the
people of Germany." Is this the kind of safety Bill Clinton has in mind for us? The primary goal
of the Second Amendment, and the reason that it is indispensable, is to give each American the ability to
protect himself from a repressive Government and the ability to defend himself where the State never
can — in his home.
Reading the Second
Amendment: Is [the Second Amendment] so hard to understand? Apparently so. Even
some of its defenders don't like how it is worded because it allegedly breeds misunderstanding. But the
Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights is indeed a well-crafted sentence. By that I mean
that its syntax permits only one reasonable interpretation of the authors' meaning, namely, that the people's
individual right to be armed ought to be respected and that the resulting armed populace will be secure
against tyranny, invasion, and crime. Someone completely ignorant of the eighteenth-century American
political debates but familiar with the English language should be able to make out the meaning easily.
A Freedom Under
Fire: Except for perhaps the question of whether or not to legalize abortion, no public issue of
recent years has absorbed more interest or stirred the violent emotions of thoughtful people (and of those
less so) than the prickly matter of gun control. In the editorial pages of newspapers, before the
committees of Congress, the battle has been joined.
Weapons Scanner Raises
Constitutional Concern: A federal agency is developing a radar-like device that uses
electromagnetic waves to peer through clothing and detect concealed weapons from up to 50 feet away.
News of the planned system comes amid national angst over domestic terrorism while adding a new dimension to
the debate over the constitutionality of high-tech policing practices.
Who Will Speak for the Second
Amendment?: A new Web site has appeared which accuses Attorney General John Ashcroft
of having expressed "a position on the Second Amendment that is in direct conflict with legal precedent,
historical research, and established Justice Department policy." What exactly did Ashcroft
say? The site quotes a May 17, 2001 letter to National Rifle Association Executive Director
James Jay Baker, in which Ashcroft writes: "…let me state unequivocally my view that the text and
the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear
firearms." That is the statement which the Violence Policy Center (VPC) condemns.