Mediaboss Marketing

Bryan Oberc, in Munster, Ind., tries out an AR-15 from Sig Sauer in the exhibition hall at the National Rifle Association Annual Meeting in Indianapolis in 2019. Michael Conroy/AP hide caption

Bryan Oberc, in Munster, Ind., tries out an AR-15 from Sig Sauer in the exhibition hall at the National Rifle Association Annual Meeting in Indianapolis in 2019.

For more than three decades, California has banned certain types of semiautomatic rifles including the AR-15 under an "assault weapons" ban. On Friday, a federal judge threw out the ban, ruling that it violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

"The Second Amendment is about America's freedom: the freedom to protect oneself, family, home, and homeland," Judge Roger Benitez wrote for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. "California's assault weapon ban disrespects that freedom."

California Gov. Gavin Newsom called the decision "a direct threat to public safety," and state Attorney General Rob Bonta has said the state would appeal.

Courts differ on whether assault weapons bans are constitutional. That's because the Supreme Court has never actually heard a case testing their constitutionality.

The main guidance for lower courts comes from District of Columbia v. Heller, a landmark 2008 decision permitting private citizens to keep handguns in the home. The Heller test is straightforward: Is the firearm commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes?

"If the lower courts were following Heller directly ... that would be the end of the case," said David Kopel, a constitutional law professor at Denver University Sturm College of Law, and adjunct scholar at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute.

But some courts, including federal courts in California, use a multi-step test that requires "policy-balancing," Kopel told NPR. That's why Benitez's 94-page opinion so exhaustively examines the pros and cons of an assault weapons ban.

Among similar cases that have been heard across the country, Benitez's opinion is "by far the most thorough in its careful examination of the evidence," Kopel said.

"This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection," Judge Benitez wrote. The firearms that the California legislature had deemed "assault weapons" are actually "ordinary, popular, modern rifles," he said.

The judge was trying to demonstrate how ordinary the AR-15 is because when a weapon is in common use, it's protected by the Second Amendment, said Josh Blackman, a law professor at South Texas College of Law Houston who is also an adjunct scholar at Cato.

"I think the case for protecting the AR-15 is greater than the case for protecting the handgun," Blackman said. "The Second Amendment has a couple touchstones: One is self-defense. The other one is protection from the government itself. This is the weapon."

Michael Morley, a professor of law at Florida State University College of Law and contributor to The Federalist Society, said that the court "engaged with the record evidence, statistics, and factual underpinning of expert witnesses' conclusions at a highly granular level of detail."

But, Morley told NPR, "the opinion contains some rhetorical flourishes and argumentative portions that I don't believe strike the right tone for a judicial issuance."

One such rhetorical flourish came at the start of Benitez's opinion. The judge compared the AR-15 to a "Swiss Army Knife," calling it "a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense weapon." Benitez, appointed to the bench in 2003 by President George W. Bush, repeatedly criticized the state's ban as a "failed experiment" that "has had no effect" on mass shootings in the 30 years it was enacted.

The opinion reads like it's written "by an AR-15 salesman rather than a constitutional analyst," said Larry Tribe, professor emeritus of constitutional law at Harvard Law School. "The bias fairly drips from the opinion, and the analysis certainly does not follow from the Supreme Court's jurisprudence about the Second Amendment."

This isn't the first time Judge Benitez has weighed in on controversial gun laws. In 2019, he struck down a state law banning gun magazines that hold more than 10 bullets. "Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts," Benitez wrote at the time.

It's very likely that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will ultimately reverse Benitez's ruling, said Kopel, because "no pro-Second Amendment has ever survived in the Ninth Circuit."

After that, legal observers say, it's possible the Supreme Court will step in to settle the matter. But that's far from certain. In 2016, the high court declined to hear a challenge to assault weapons bans in Connecticut and New York. The year before, the court rejected a similar challenge over local ordinances in Cook County, Ill.

Read more from the original source:
'Ordinary, Popular' Guns Protected By Second Amendment, California Judge Rules - NPR

The Supreme Courts decision to hear a case pertaining to New Yorks strict limits on carrying guns outside the home provides conservative justices the opportunity to apply one of their pet theories: originalism. If they are intellectually honest about doing so, the restrictions will stand.

One of conservatives favorite tropes over the past several decades is a defense of the original intent of the founders. Conservatives have deployed this judicial doctrine against what they decry as judicial activism, rulings on the part of judges that, conservatives insist, abrogate the separation of powers mandated by the founders in the Constitution. Curiously, however, these same conservatives have yet to apply originalism to the Second Amendment.

The proper approach to the Constitution, these originalists argue, is to discern what the founders intended rather than treat the Constitution as a living document that articulates fixed principles that must be adapted to changing historical and cultural circumstances.

As the late Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court justice most identified with originalism, said in 2012, The Constitution is a static being. A decade earlier, Scalia had declared, The Constitution I apply is not living but dead, or as I put it, enduring.

Originalists, for instance, insisted that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment should not be applied to sexual orientation and the right to marry. Because the amendment was drafted to protect freed slaves, the argument goes, it has no applicability to same-sex marriage.

For Scalia and other originalists, determining original intent requires immersing oneself in the political and intellectual atmosphere of the time somehow placing out of mind knowledge that we have which an earlier age did not, and putting on beliefs, attitudes, philosophies, prejudices and loyalties that are not those of our day.

Some conservatives have taken originalism to ridiculous extremes. Years ago, while touring the South with students from the Columbia School of Journalism, I sat in shocked disbelief as Roy S. Moore, former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court (and, more recently, defeated Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate) informed us that the free exercise clause of the First Amendment applied only to Christianity because the founders did not know any religion besides Christianity.

That assertion, of course, is demonstrably false the founders were well aware of Jews and Muslims as well as other religions but it illustrates conservatives almost slavish allegiance to originalism.

Lets return to Scalias comments about immersing oneself in the political and intellectual atmosphere of the time and shift our attention from the First Amendment to the Second Amendment, which reads, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Surely, any self-respecting originalist, someone sincerely trying to understand the political and intellectual atmosphere of the time, would not ignore the full text of the amendment.

Although the National Rifle Association and other gun advocates routinely quote the second half of the amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, a more honest reading would include the initial clause: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. ...

Indeed, historians have demonstrated that the founders were eager to ensure that militias were properly armed against the British. Very likely, therefore, the founders intended to secure the right to bear arms for members of militias.

(Whenever I see a gun enthusiast swaggering with a firearm, Im tempted to ask very politely, of course, and in a conversational tone the name and location of his militia. Tempted, as I say, but Ive found that discretion is the greater part of valor when dealing with someone heavily armed.)

Even if we set aside the militia argument, an originalist approach to the Second Amendment one concerned about the political and intellectual atmosphere of the time would surely strain to justify a constitutional right to brandish the modern weapons used to create the carnage we have seen again and again.

Did the founders really intend to ensure civilian access to the AR-15 essentially the semi-automatic version of the militarys M16 automatic rifle that a mentally unbalanced teenager used to kill 17 in Parkland, Fla.? Or the semi-automatic weapons used in Boulder, Orlando, Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, Aurora, San Bernardino, Pittsburgh or Midland/Odessa? (Im sure I missed a few in that accounting.)

A true originalist might reasonably argue for the constitutional right to wield a musket, but modern weapons of war with their power, range and capacity would surely go beyond the bounds of original intent.

The founders had no knowledge of such weapons.

Instead, the National Rifle Association has announced yet another advertising campaign, this one for $2 million, to ensure constitutional rights and thwart any attempt at sensible gun safety, and lawmakers in Texas recently voted to allow anyone to carry weapons without a license.

After still more horrific shootings Indianapolis, San Jose, Miami Beach we hear once again that conservatives thoughts and prayers are with the victims families.

Rather than accept another round of empty pieties, we should demand that they, along with Scalias acolytes on the Supreme Court, embrace their own rhetoric and apply the doctrine of original intent to the Second Amendment, thereby clearing the way for sensible measures on gun safety.

Randall Balmer, a professor at Dartmouth College, is the author of Solemn Reverence: The Separation of Church and State in American Life.

Read the original post:
Column: 'Originalism' and the Second Amendment - Valley News

I am writing to applaud Richard Edlunds understanding of the Second Amendment to our constitution in the editorial titled Article offers insight into gun laws. His conclusion is that the gun lobbys interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated on the American people.

A simple reading of the entire Second Amendment clearly communicates that the purpose of the amendment is to assure that militias have arms available to allow those militias to perform their intended purposes.

A historical understanding of the times the amendment was written reveals its purpose.

1. Militias were the standard method of providing defenses for communities, states and the entire country.

2. Militias relied on members to supply their own arms. No private arms; no defense.

3. The Founders, for many reasons, were suspicious of and wanted to avoid chancing the potential dangers they envisioned in standing armies.

4. The survival of communities, states and the entire country was dependent on individual well-regulated militia members supplying their own arms.

5. The founding population did use these same arms for self-defense since they had no other alternative.

Today's conditions are quite different from the conditions of our founding.

1. We have the strongest military in the world to protect our country.

2. We have National Guard units to both support our federal military and protect the states.

3. We have police, sheriff personnel and highway patrol units to protect our local citizenry.

4. None of the units mentioned above require individuals to supply their own arms.

5. Individuals can rely on all of the forgoing for their personal safety.

Times have changed from our founding. The arms referred to in the Second Amendment are no longer needed to support our various organizations that are designed to provide our current defensive needs. Elimination of the second amendment is unnecessary. Simply read the entire amendment, understand its initial intent and use it to help assure that our federal government does nothing to weaken or eliminate the various organizations that have replaced our well regulated Militias of the past.

The development of this country was violent and guns, both personal and governmental, were a large part of what is now viewed as past progress. One only has to compare the mayhem committed by individuals with guns in our country with other modern countries to realize that we are doing something wrong when it comes to managing these dangerous implements for public safety.

Guns, in my opinion, should be considered what they are. Very dangerous if misused. Other dangerous items such as vehicles, dangerous medications and other things that can become a public menace if improperly used are regulated by law.

It is well past time where this country, for its own protection, needs to regulate firearms in a responsible way for the public's protection and stop reading only the Second Amendments last two phrases and include the first two phrases to provide understanding of the intent. Reading relevant history can also be useful.

Ronald L. Feller

Aiken

See the rest here:
Letter: Guns should be well-regulated | Letters to the Editor | postandcourier.com - Charleston Post Courier

After spending decades assailing the Second Amendment rights of American citizens, cultural Marxists believe theyve finally found the perfect line of attack against the constitutional right to keep and bear arms: racism.

Just like every other aspect of the American Founding, the ratification of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is rooted in nothing more than white supremacy. Or at least, thats what scholar Carol Anderson wants you to believe.

In her latest book, The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America, Anderson argues that the well regulated Militia inscribed in the Second Amendment was created to provide states with a mechanism to quell potential slave uprisings.

It was in response to the concerns coming out of the Virginia ratification convention for the Constitution, led by Patrick Henry and George Mason, that a militia that was controlled solely by the federal government would not be there to protect the slave owners from an enslaved uprising, she told NPR. And James Madison crafted that language in order to mollify the concerns coming out of Virginia and the anti-Federalists, that they would still have full control over their state militias and those militias were used in order to quell slave revolts.

Anderson claimed the Second Amendment provided the cover, the assurances that Patrick Henry and George Mason needed, that the militias would not be controlled by the federal government, but that they would be controlled by the states and at the beck and call of the states to be able to put down these uprisings.

While Anderson argues that her book isnt anti-gun, her statements made to CNN say otherwise. When asked about the recent announcement that the Supreme Court would pick up a gun rights case, Anderson pivoted to gun control, asserting that opposition to such measures is likely based on white Americans fear of black Americans.

After Sandy Hook, nothing happened, she said. How could that be? That could be because of this underlying fear that if there are real gun safety laws then whites will be left defenseless against these black people.

Anderson also stated her belief that recent efforts in Texas to pass constitutional carry legislation are a result of the growing diversity of Texas and predicts that the state will become a slaughterhouse if the bill becomes law. The law has already passed the Texas legislature and is headed to the desk of Gov. Greg Abbott, who has already pledged to sign it.

Not only are Andersons historical claims entirely inaccurate, but the publication of her book represents the larger, continued effort by American leftists to degrade and distort the American founding. The entire premise of the Second Amendment was not to protect the institution of slavery as Anderson suggests, but rather to provide the American citizenry with a necessary tool to prevent encroachments by their federal government.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, stated James Madison in June 1789. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.

Samuel Adams made the same sentiments a year prior during the Massachusetts ratifying convention, where he proclaimed the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms

Having recently lived under the thumb of Great Britain, the Founders understood that the capacity for government to infringe on the rights of its people was universal and that such tyranny could certainly exist in America. As a result, the Founders viewed the individual right to keep and bear arms as essential in preserving the freedom and liberty of the American citizenry.

Andersons attempt to make racism the reason behind the establishment of the Second Amendment falls in lockstep with Marxist curricula like the New York Times 1619 Project. The goal isnt merely to just falsify our history, but to do so in a way that breeds further division within the country. Rather than divide us by economic status or class, this kind of racial Marxism seeks to pit Americans against one another based on race.

Ultimately, the propagation of such an ideology will sow discord throughout the nation, all the while allowing power-hungry politicians and a ruling class to assume more power and control of our lives.

Shawn Fleetwood is an intern at The Federalist and a student attending the University of Mary Washington.

More:
Historian Falsely Claims The Second Amendment Was Created To Protect Slavery - The Federalist

Second Amendment Wins of the Week

USA -(AmmoLand.com)- With so much happening for patriots these days. AmmoLand News wants to leave you with some highlights or wins on the battleground for 2A rights, and a few other patriot efforts,,, with our Friday round-up of Second Amendment Wins-of-the-Week.

Please share this page or these wins on your social media and help red pill your friends and family.

U.S. District Court Judge rules Californias ban on so-called Assault Weapons, the most popular guns in America is Unconstitutional.

CA: San Clemente Council Majority Declares City A 2nd Amendment Freedom City: aka Sanctuary:

After more than two hours of discussion, the City Council, in a 3-2 vote, passed a resolution supporting gun owners Constitutional rights to bear arms, but dropped the term sanctuary city.

Utah: Davis County Enacts Second Amendment Policy:

According to authorities, the Second Amendment policy a strong defense against any governmental infringement on constitutional rights of Davis County citizens.

Florida Mass Shooting Claim Fake News: Video Shows Crowd Just Before 3 Gunmen Opened Fire:

The gunmen [read gang members] waited outside of the banquet hall for about 40 minutes and then opened fire on patrons as they left, Miami-Dade Police Director Freddy Ramirez told ABC News on Sunday. Some patrons returned fire, Ramirez said, and over 100 shell casings were found at the scene.

24 States Urging Supreme Court to Uphold Second Amendment:

The right to bear arms is vital to all Americans, said Attorney General Chris Carr. New Jerseys law criminalizes the mere possession of commonly used arms, even in the home for self-defense, which unconstitutionally strikes at the core of the Second Amendment.

CNN surprised that female, minority & LGBTQ+ communities support gun rights:

the mainstream media are finally discovering what we have long known the gun rights tent is very, very large, and the NRA is but one of many tent poles.

California Fails to Pass Tax Hikes on Handguns and Ammunition:

The California Assembly on Thursday failed to pass a bill that would have raised taxes on handguns and ammunition.

The bill by Assemblyman Marc Levine, a Democrat from San Rafael, would have imposed a 10% tax on the sales price of handguns and an 11% tax on the sales price of rifles, precursor parts and ammunition.

Concealed Handgun License-Holder Acquitted By Jury Of His Peers, Found To Have Acted In Self-Defense:

A Franklin County jury decided Friday that a 32-year-old man with a concealed-carry permit was acting in self defense when he fatally shot another man during a confrontation at a Far East Side gas station.

California: San Clemente Becomes Second Amendment Freedom City:

Elected officials in San Clemente, California, on June 1 voted to declare the region a Second Amendment Freedom City with a non-binding, symbolic resolution.

N.H. House Asserts Independence From Feds On Gun & Election Laws:

The New Hampshire House of Representatives has voted to block state and local law enforcement from enforcing federal limits on guns.

These are just a few of the best wins of the week. Did we miss some? Include your Second Amendment Wins of the Week in the comments below.

See the rest here:
Second Amendment Wins of the Week : 5/30/2021 -6/04/2021 - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News