Mediaboss Marketing

Salesman Ryan Martinez holds a handgun at the Ready Gunner gun store In Provo, Utah, June 21, 2016.(George Frey/Reuters)

In my post arguing that the Founders wanted you to own AR-15, I contend that there was no mention of hunting during drafting debates over the Bill of Rights.

Professor Joseph Olson reminds me that the debates over ratification of the Bill of Rights in Pennsylvania did indeed mention hunting. (I write about this in detail in my cultural history of the gun.)

Here was the excellent suggestion offered by the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention on the topic of arms:

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.

James Madison ended up simplifying and distilling many suggestions, throwing in a comma that would be seized upon many years later. But the debate on ratification was over militias and standing armies, never over individual ownership of guns.

Hunting was likely only mentioned in the Pennsylvania convention as a precaution against English-style restrictions on ownership. The most famous example, the Game Act of 1671, made possession of a firearm by anyone unqualified to hunt (read, common men) illegal and provided a pretext for the Crown to confiscate weapons.

Many saw all of this as superfluous. Some argue that fear of the national government was overblown because there were so many guns in private hands it was unimaginable any tyrannical army could ever be more powerful than the general public. Noah Webster, writing as A Citizen of America, reasoned that the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.

Not one person in the provisional government or at the Second Continental Congress or any delegate at the Constitutional Convention at any state ratifying convention is on the record arguing against the idea of individual firearm ownership. There is, however, a multitude of examples of leaders championing the importance of that right.

Eight of the 13 original states enshrined the right to gun ownership in their constitutions most with language more straightforward than that found in the Bill of Rights. The best was probably New Hampshires compact sentence: Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.

Read the rest here:
On the Second Amendment and Hunting - National Review

Image: Adobe Stock

The U.S. militia movement has long been steeped in a peculiar and unquestionably mistaken interpretation of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and civil liberties.

This is true of an armed militia group that calls itself the Wolverine Watchmen, who were involved in the recently revealed plot to overthrow Michigans government and kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

As I wrote in Fracturing the Founding: How the Alt-Right Corrupts the Constitution, published in 2019, the crux of the militia movements devotion to what I have called the alt-right constitution is a toxic mix of constitutional falsehoods and half-truths.

Private militias

The term militia has many meanings.

The Constitution addresses militias in Article 1, authorizing Congress to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining, the Militia.

But the Constitution makes no provision for private militias, like the far-right Wolverine Watchmen, Proud Boys, Michigan Militia and the Oath Keepers, to name just a few.

Private militias are simply groups of like-minded men members are almost always white males who subscribe to a sometimes confusing set of beliefs about an avaricious federal government that is hostile to white men and white heritage, and the sanctity of the right to bear arms and private property. They believe that government is under the control of Jews, the United Nations, international banking interests, Leftists, Antifa, Black Lives Matter and so on. There is no evidence of this.

On Oct. 8, the FBI arrested six men, five of them from Michigan, and charged them with conspiring to kidnap Whitmer. Shortly thereafter, state authorities charged an additional seven men with, according to the Associated Press, allegedly seeking to storm the Michigan Capitol and seek a civil war. Included were the founders and several members of the Wolverine Watchmen.

As revealed in the FBI affidavit accompanying the federal charges, the six men charged claimed to be defenders of the Bill of Rights. Indeed, some of the men in April had participated in rallies in Lansing, the state capital, where armed citizens tried to force their way onto the floor of the State House to protest Governor Whitmers pandemic shut-down orders as a violation of the Constitution by a tyrannical government intent upon sacrificing civil liberties in the name of the COVID-19 fight.

According to the FBIs affidavit, the conspirators wanted to create a society that followed the U.S. Bill of Rights and where they could be self-sufficient.

Militia members imagine themselves to be the last true American patriots, the modern defenders of the United States Constitution in general and the Second Amendment in particular.

Hence, the Bill of Rights and especially the Second Amendment, which establishes the right to bear arms figure prominently in the alt-constitution. It is no accident that the initial discussions about overthrowing Michigans so-called tyrannical governor started at a Second Amendment rally in June.

According to most militias, the Second Amendment authorizes their activity and likewise makes them free of legal regulation by the state. In truth, the Second Amendment does nothing to authorize private armed militias. Private armed militias are explicitly illegal in every state.

No restrictions on rights

Additional foundational principles of militia constitutionalism include absolutism. Absolutism, in the militia world, is the idea that fundamental constitutional rights like freedom of speech, the right to bear arms and the right to own property cannot be restricted or regulated by the state without a citizens consent.

The far rights reading of the First and Second Amendments which govern free speech and the right to bear arms, respectively starts from a simple premise: Both amendments are literal and absolute. They believe that the First Amendment allows them to say anything, anytime, anywhere, to anyone, without consequence or reproach by government or even by other citizens who disagree or take offense at their speech.

Similarly, the alt-right gun advocates hold that the Second Amendment protects their God-given right to own a weapon any weapon and that governmental efforts to deny, restrict or even to register their weapons must be unconstitutional. They think the Second Amendment trumps every other provision in the Constitution.

Another key belief among militia members is the principle of constitutional self-help. Thats the belief that citizens, acting on their inherent authority as sovereign free men, are ultimately and finally responsible for enforcing the Constitution as they understand it.

Demonstrating this way of thinking, the men arrested in Michigan discussed taking Gov. Whitmer to a secure location in Wisconsin to stand trial for treason prior to the Nov. 3 election. According to Barry County, Michigan Sheriff Dar Leaf a member of the militia-friendly Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officer Association the men arrested in Michigan were perhaps not trying to kidnap the governor but were instead simply making a citizens arrest.

Leaf, who appeared at a Grand Rapids protest in May of Gov. Whitmers stay-at-home order along with two of the alleged kidnappers, mistakenly believes that local sheriffs are the highest constitutional authority in the United States, invested with the right to determine which laws support and which laws violate the Constitution. The events in Michigan show how dangerous these mistaken understandings of the Constitution can be.

There will be more

The Wolverine Watchmen are not a Second Amendment militia or constitutional patriots in any sense of the word. If they are guilty of the charges brought against them, then they are terrorists.

The FBI and Michigan law enforcement shut down the Watchmen before an egregious crime and a terrible human tragedy unfolded. But as I concluded just last year in my book, there is little reason to think the militia movement will subside soon.

Unfortunately, I did not account for the possibility that President Trump would encourage militias to stand back and stand by, which seems likely to encourage and embolden groups that already clearly represent a threat. Expect more Michigans.

This story incorporates material from a story published on April 15, 2019 in The Conversation.

John E. Finn is a Professor Emeritus of Government at Wesleyan University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read more from the original source:
Plot to kidnap Michigan's governor grew from the militia movement's toxic mix of constitutional falsehoods and half-truths - ncpolicywatch.com

To the Editor:

Robert Thomas is running for the U.S. House of Representatives, District 4. A strong supporter of the Second Amendment, he is for building the wall in opposing illegal immigration into the United States.

Incumbent Ted Budd is running for re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives, District 13. A strong proponent of the Second Amendment, Budd owns a gun range in Rural Hall.

Tom Glendinning is running for the N.C. State Senate, District 23. Attentive to safety and security, he is a strong advocate for property rights. Glendinning opposes discrimination against seniors.

George Gilson Jr. is running for the N.C. State House, District 54. A strong supporter of the Second Amendment, he believes in small government and personal accountability. Gilson opposes excessive tax and runaway spending. Opposed to open borders, he favors a voter ID law.

Jay Stobbs is running for the Chatham County Board of Commissioners, District 1. Opposed to raising property and sales taxes in Chatham County, and against removal of the Chatham County Confederate statue, Stobbs is committed to safeguarding farmlands in the western part of Chatham County from land-use zoning.

Jimmy Pharr is a candidate for the Chatham County Board of Commissioners, District 2. Pharr is against raising property and sales taxes, removal of the Confederate statue and zoning of farmlands in the western part of Chatham County.

Andy Wilkie is an incumbent candidate for the Chatham County Board of Commissioners, District 5. He created the Project Help non-profit for serving the homeless people in Sanford. Commissioner Wilkie is on the side of holding down taxes, respecting status quo of the Confederate statue and protecting farmlands in the western part of Chatham County.

Ryan Armstrong is running for the Chatham County Board of Education, District 1. In favor of competent preparedness and effective communications, Armstrong wants to be a voice for teachers, students and parents. In advocating a two-tier revolving teaching schedule, he supports live-streaming classes.

Dennis Lewis is running for the Chatham County Board of Education, District 2. Promising to be a voice for parents on the board, he favors hybrid teaching that includes options for in-class and online teaching. Lewis advocates attention to STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics) and trade skills. Along with ensuring bandwidth access in rural areas, he would introduce JROTC (Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps) in schools.

Rolin Mainuddin

Chapel Hill

See the original post here:
Letter to the Editor: Vote for Chatham County Republican candidates - The Chatham News + Record

One of the overlooked elements of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse's masterclass in discreet political corruption during the confirmation hearings of Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Tuesday was his appeal to revive in practice the civil jury trial, which, due to a number of factors, has fallen into disuse, despite the fact that it was considered to be so important to our sacred Founders that they embedded it into the Bill of Rights through the Seventh Amendment. Reviving the civil trial by jury has been a particular cause for Whitehouse going back at least to 2015, when he delivered the keynote address to the Civic Jury Project at New York University.

In that speech, Whitehouse detailed the reasons why the civil trial by jury had ended up on the shelf, and almost all of those reasons had to do with the government's steady slide toward oligarchy, none of which, god knows, have anything to do with "originalism" or "textualism." The text of the Seventh Amendment is as clear as a bell. It is written with far better grammarand therefore, far less ambiguitythan, say, the Second Amendment. In that speech, Whitehouse explained:

On Tuesday, Whitehouse made the case again.

OK, maybe it's only me to whom this all is a revelation. But that makes the whole idea of this hearing worthwhile. It's nice, occasionally, to be reminded that the Bill of Rights doesn't stop after two amendments.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io

More:
Sheldon Whitehouse Also Reminded Us the Bill of Rights Doesn't Stop After Two Amendments - Esquire.com

Editors note: A previous version of this story ran in the Daily Lobos print edition on Monday, Oct. 12, 2020. That story has been updated with quotes from one of the candidates that came in after deadline.

Editors note: This story has been updated to more accurately represent legislation referenced within.

One of the closest congressional races in the country is taking place in southern New Mexico: House District 2, contested between incumbent Democrat Xochitl Torres Small and Republican and former state legislator Yvette Herrell.

The race is a rematch of the 2018 election, which Torres Small won by only about 4,000 votes and polling indicates the race is tight once again.

After two years in Congress, the Torres Small campaign has experience and a voting record which they believe demonstrates the representatives understanding of the district and its unique policy needs.

Voters can look at the bipartisan work shes done to secure the border, expand rural health care, and to protect New Mexicos public lands, the Torres Small campaign told The Daily Lobo. (She) approaches all legislation from the impact it would have on her constituents.

Herrell, meanwhile, has touted her new campaign team and the fact that President Donald Trump is the Republican presidential nominee as evidence that she has momentum on her side.

I am a better, stronger candidate this time, Herrell said. Republican enthusiasm in New Mexico is also sky high with President Trump at the top of the ticket.

Trump endorsed Herrell via Twitter on Oct. 10 as the Republican Party continued their push to flip New Mexico red, which began with Trumps Sept. 2019 rally in Rio Rancho.

Polling suggests the states other federal congressional seats are likely to remain in Democratic hands, but the 2nd District is in question.

The 2nd District has historically leaned Republican and is diverse, covering all of Las Cruces as well as a number of rural cities and towns throughout the southern half of the state.

Representative Torres Small has been, in my view, a true representative of the people because she has been able to represent the interests of her constituents (across the district), said Dr. Magdaleno Manzanarez, professor of political science and vice president of external affairs at Western New Mexico University, which is located in the 2nd District. Its not a monolithic district. To me, she has proved she can do the job very well.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, nearly four times more money has been raised in this race than either of the other House races in the state. By the most recently available data, Torres Smalls campaign has raised $4.5 million nearly four times more than Herrells $1.2 million but the Herrell campaign has raised slightly more within the district than Torres Small.

Much of this money has gone to advertising, where the candidates have sparred over key issues, including Second Amendment rights and the oil and gas industry.

Both candidates have run ads depicting themselves shooting weapons, in a nod to the importance of gun rights in the district.

One of the Herrell campaigns advertisements accuses Torres Small of selling out pro-Second Amendment constituents by voting for HR-8, a resolution meant to close gun show sale loopholes.

The ad has received pushback. KOB wrote that the claim was misleading, saying that the bill would not have prevented anyone from buying a gun.

Torres Small issued a statement shortly after the vote on HR-8, touting the resolution as common-sense and bipartisan. However, the vote in the House largely went along party lines.

Rep. Torres Small is a gun owner and a hunter who knows the importance of protecting our Second Amendment rights while also protecting our communities, the Torres Small campaign said. Thats why, like 87% of New Mexicans, she supports comprehensive background checks and voted for (HR-8), making sure it had reasonable exceptions.

Herrell has maintained that the resolution was out of line with the Second Amendment, pointing to a statement released by the Trump administration opposing it.

The Herrell campaign has adopted the slogan Stop Xocialism. However, Torres Small has ranked as one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress according to DW-NOMINATE, a metric developed by political scientists which ranks members of Congress on how liberal or conservative they are according to their voting record.

One of the topics on which Torres Small has broken at times from the rest of the Democratic Party is on subjects of oil and gas, an industry which makes up an enormous portion of New Mexicos economy.

If we shut down oil and gas drilling in New Mexico today, wed have to shut our schools down tomorrow, Torres Small said in a February statement. I will continue to support responsible energy production in the district, including one of our countrys largest sources of oil and gas in the Permian Basin.

The executive director of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association, Ryan Flynn, has been complimentary of Torres Smalls record while simultaneously emerging at the center of a rift between the fossil fuel trade group and the states Republican Party.

Flynn praised Torres Smalls record and said she had been an advocate for oil and gas. Several prominent New Mexican Republicans, including party chair Steve Pearce, rebuked his statement in an op-ed in the Santa Fe New Mexican, accusing Flynn of using the trade group as a political tool.

The Torres Small campaigns statement was in opposition to the fracking ban proposed by U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14).

You have to be pragmatic, Manzanarez said. In District 2, a true representative has to walk the line. From the progressive side, sometimes (Torres Small) has been criticized assuming she (goes) against oil interests ... what do you do with people who make a living out of that industry?

However, Herrell says Torres Smalls advocacy for the industry is unreliable.

Herrell has claimed the representative changed her vote on a measure preventing future presidents from banning fracking, saying Her flip flop demonstrates she will cave to environmental extremists when it counts.

However, the Albuquerque Journal said in Aug. that the vote that Herrell is referencing (House Resolution 844) was on a procedural motion, not a fracking ban. Torres Small has stated that she would oppose a ban on fracking.

Asked about whether the Congresswoman supports an eventual transition to renewable energy, the Torres Small campaign stated she favors a negotiated approach.

Rep. Torres Small knows climate change is real and New Mexicans are already feeling its effects, the campaign said. She believes New Mexico must be part of the solution - but we can only do it by having all parties at the table.

In-person voter registration is open until Oct. 31. Absentee ballots can be requested until Oct. 20.

William Bowen is a beat reporter at the Daily Lobo. He can be contacted at news@dailylobo.com or on Twitter @BowenWrites

Read the original:
Guns, oil and outside money: The expensive race for southern New Mexico - UNM Daily Lobo