Mediaboss Marketing

I feel like its time we had a discussion about a now very topical subject. Our rights. Specifically as laid out in the Bill of Rights. Beautiful, God-given rights that would have been lost long ago without the Second Amendment.

Our founders put the right to bear arms in the number two spot for a very good reason. It was their way of saying, Here are your top five God-given rights, and here is how you defend them.

With very serious enemies of those rights and specifically the right to bear arms, in the White House the Second Amendment is once again a very hot topic of conversation. As such, it needs to be understood as thoroughly as possibly. What does it mean sentence by sentence? Lets find out:

A well-regulated militia: This has been interpreted to mean different things depending on the view of the interpreter. The Left wants it to mean the National Guard or similar force. The Right says it means the people. George Mason of Virginia famously said, What is the militia? It is the whole of the people. Those words are used to support the people argument.

However, if you read the Federalist Papers and the letters of the Founders you come to a slightly different meaning.

In essays 27 through 29 of the Federalist Papers (written by Alexander Hamilton), you clearly see that the term, a well-regulated militia, means a standing professional army. An army in the control of the central or federal government.

It is important to know that the citizens of the new United States of America had a very strong aversion to the government having a professional army. Such armies have been used throughout history to subjugate societies everywhere. The people of the USA did not want that.

This desire creates a problem because a nation, any nation, absolutely needs a military to remain free and sovereign.

That brings us to the second portion of the sentence, being necessary to the security of a free state,

Hamilton and Madison were attempting to convince the people of the necessity and assure them it could be done without threat of subjugation.

If it were to be written in the common speech of today, we might say it like this: A professional military, including a Navy, is necessary for the security of a free nation; however, because it is a danger to allow the government to have that military and navy, every citizen must be armed and trained if possible.

They wrote it as a constitutional right.

Far too often these days, we tend to use the term self-defense and that allows the enemies of the Constitution to claim its not necessary, because the police protect us. The police and that very military.

As citizens of our country, we are always ready to respond in a minute, (Minute men and women) are the militia in waiting. We are not a well-regulated militia. We are armed because of the inherent danger of that very necessary well-regulated militia. It really is very simple and straight forward.

I read one book of letters from the Revolutionary War period and do not remember the name of the writer, but he stated The Second Amendment allowed the average citizen to remain armed in a fashion equal to or in excess of the common soldier. A fairly high percentage of the people that owned their own firearms had rifles.

Today we call them Kentucky rifles, though most were made in Pennsylvania. Accurate to sometimes 300 or 400 yards. The weapon used by military was a musket, unrifled, and very inaccurate.

When Biden says we dont need AR-15s for self-defense, hes right. We do, however, need them to remain armed equal to or in excess of the common soldier, or as close as possible on a budget. We need them to prevent the subjugation of ourselves.

When we speak of the Second Amendment we need to speak of it in those terms, the ability to defend our freedom. Stopping a burglar or killing a trophy elk are just very nice bonuses.

In the future when you hear Biden or Harris say that you dont need an AR-15 to hunt deer understand its a distraction. Dont fall for it.

Rusty Rogers is a resident of Saratoga who pens a weekly article for the Rawlins Times.

Read more:
The Second Amendment | Opinion | wyomingnews.com - Wyoming Tribune

The Ellsworth City Council voted 6-1 Monday night against a resolution that would have declared the city a Second Amendment sanctuary.

The rejection in Ellsworth follows the recent approval of similar resolutions in a handful of small Maine towns taking stances against federal gun control measures that have yet to pass Congress.

The councils vote against the measure, submitted by Councilor Michelle Kaplan, came after Glenn Moshier, the city manager and police chief, expressed concern for how the resolution might create ambiguity or confusion for the citys police officers, who take an oath to uphold the state and U.S. constitutions.

Kaplan argued in favor of the resolution, though she ended up voting not to support it. Gene Lyons was the only councilor who voted in favor of the resolution.

Kaplan, who described herself as a law-abiding gun owner, said residents asked her to propose the resolution, which would help send a message to Congress to not enact additional restrictions on gun ownership that she claimed would be a blatant violation of our constitutional rights. Among the possible restrictions would be expanded background checks, limits on ammunition, increased taxes on gun sales and other barriers to entry, Kaplan said.

City Council Chair Dale Hamilton, who described himself as a supporter of the Second Amendment, said he had concerns about any city declaring itself a sanctuary from federal law, whether the law pertains to immigration or the right to carry firearms.

It sets a dangerous precedent, Hamilton said. You cant decide when you want to be a sanctuary city and when you dont.

Other municipalities in Maine that have considered and approved similar resolutions against proposals that they say would violate the Second Amendment include Paris, Fort Fairfield and Van Buren.

Approximately 40 people weighed in on the debate during Monday nights meeting, either in person or by emailing comments to Hamilton that he read aloud, with sentiment on the resolution more or less evenly split.

John Linnehan told members of the council that each of them swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, while Gwen Clark said she wouldnt feel safe living in a city that didnt support the Second Amendment.

Todd Little-Siebold countered that drafting the city budget and managing the citys handling of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic are two far greater priorities for the council than trying to intervene in federal politics.

It is unnecessary and purely symbolic, Little-Siebold said. Keep your focus on local issues. Dont play into the gun lobby scare tactics.

Councilor Heather Grindle said she shares many of the concerns of people who do not want additional restrictions on gun ownership, but that she is hesitant to pick and choose which federal laws Ellsworth should single out for support. She also said she wanted to learn more about how the resolution might affect local law enforcement.

Im listening and I share your frustration, but Im not quite there yet, Grindle said.

Members of the council agreed that, whatever their vote was Monday on Kaplans proposal, they would be able to consider a similar declaration of support for gun ownership rights at a future meeting, if another proposal were submitted.

See the article here:
Ellsworth rejects bid to declare itself a Second Amendment sanctuary - Bangor Daily News

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

I have spent a lot of my lawyering years practicing and teaching civil rights. The Second Amendment is something I know a great deal about. That the Westmoreland County commissioners, or any county commissioners, should pass a resolution in support of the Second Amendment strikes me as a rather meretricious vote-fishing endeavor (Commissioners to declare Westmoreland a Second Amendment County in favor of gun rights, March 16, TribLIVE).

No government entity wants to take away anyones rights under the Second Amendment. What is at issue is the Second Amendments true and intended scope and reach. Its language is not absolute and never has been. Like all other amendments, it is subject to reasonable restrictions, and even Justice Antonin Scalia, considered by many to be the patron saint of gun lovers, acknowledged that such weapons as assault rifles could be lawfully banned.

Such silly resolutions as proposed by the county commissioners only serve to embolden the misguided who think that no one can constitutionally take away any of their beloved killing machines. Perhaps the commissioners would do well to think of how such meaningless resolutions only lather up the gun lovers mistaken Second Amendment notions rather than promote respect for the law and its real meanings.

David Millstein

Naples, Fla.

The writer is a Greensburg native.

Categories:Letters to the Editor | Opinion

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

More Letters to the Editor Stories

Read the original post:
Letter to the editor: Commissioners misguided on gun-rights resolution - TribLIVE

CHEYENNE A Senate committee gave unanimous approval Wednesday to a bill aiming to protect Wyoming residents against potential federal overreach on gun regulations, despite some concerns from law enforcement officials regarding potential unintended effects of the legislation.

Titled the Second Amendment Preservation Act, Senate File 81 would deem invalid any federal laws or orders, including any gun taxes, confiscations, transfers or other regulations, that infringe on Wyoming residents ability to bear arms.

The bills primary sponsor, Sen. Anthony Bouchard, R-Cheyenne, explained to the Senate Judiciary Committee during its meeting Wednesday that his proposal was, in part, a response to the Biden administration taking over the countrys executive branch.

What were looking at here is the whole idea that we have a shift in Washington, and they actually want to use everything they can to go after our guns, Bouchard said.

The bill would also hold any law enforcement officer who knowingly deprives a Wyoming resident of their Second Amendment rights legally liable for such a violation, and it would remove qualified immunity, or protections that shield police and other government officials from lawsuits, under such violations included in the bill. That aspect of the bill drew significant concern from several law enforcement officials during the meeting Wednesday.

Law enforcement officials opposing the bill repeatedly emphasized their support for the Second Amendment and gun freedoms, but specific aspects of the bill gave them pause. Prior to the meeting, all 23 of Wyomings sheriffs had signed onto a letter raising concerns about the bill stripping qualified immunity under specific circumstances.

Sweetwater County Sheriff John Grossnickle told lawmakers that the qualified immunity portion of the bill would put Wyoming down the same path as those states of Washington and Oregon, in reference to states that have adopted tighter restrictions on law enforcement. The sheriff added that former President Donald Trump, who he described as one of the greatest supporters of law enforcement, would be opposed to such a measure.

The second half of this bill, which addresses law enforcement, contradicts everything that the former president stood for in regard to law enforcement, Grossnickle said. With that, I see that the hypocrisy of this bill actually knows no bounds, and, quite frankly, its a sad, sad day for law enforcement in the state of Wyoming if this bill proceeds the way it is.

Sheridan County Sheriff Allen Thompson recounted a recent case in a neighboring county in which some firearms were seized from fugitives, and the case was then turned over to federal entities for prosecution. Those instances are often beneficial to local law enforcement officials, Thompson said, as federal officials can take on cases that otherwise might be cost-prohibitive for local officials on their own.

What this bill does is really give a chilling effect to local law enforcement working at all with federal law enforcement, and, frankly, (it) would scare most officers and deputies into not seizing a firearm for any reason whatsoever, and sure as heck not talking to federal law enforcement about investigations, Thompson said.

Others questioned whether SF 81, which is similar to proposals enacted or being mulled in several other states, would be constitutional if enacted into law. Wyoming resident and attorney Linda Burt, who was a previous executive director of the ACLU of Wyoming, said the bill was absolutely unconstitutional, with substantial case law reaffirming that federal law takes precedence over state laws under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

During the meeting, Bouchard said he was opposed to broader efforts to repeal qualified immunity for law enforcement officials, calls that have grown among progressives following the wave of protests against police brutality that occurred last summer in the wake of the killing of George Floyd.

The Laramie County senator said he plans to introduce amendments to the bill that would shift the liability burden from individual officers to agencies for violations included in his bill, adding he would like to work with law enforcement officials to address their concerns. Bill co-sponsor Rep. Dan Laursen, R-Powell, said it was frustrating that the bill sponsors had reached out to sheriffs asking for amendments and received no response.

The bill was then advanced by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 5-0 vote. Senate File 81 will now head to the Senate floor for further consideration and debate.

Tom Coulter is the Wyoming Tribune Eagles state government reporter. He can be reached at tcoulter@wyomingnews.com or 307-633-3124. Follow him on Twitter at @tomcoulter_.

See original here:
Second Amendment Preservation Act proposal advanced by legislative committee - Wyoming Tribune

SHAWANO, WI- The Shawano County Board will welcome in the community and take a vote on becoming a sanctuary county for the 2nd Amendment, or the Right to Bear Arms.

The issue has been a topic of discussion since last year when other counties in the state did the same. The resolution was brought before the Public Safety Committee last year, and has been on hold due to COVID-19.

It has been a whole year now, so it is time to make a move, County Board Chairman Tom Kautza said. It did pass through a committee and was moved to the full board so I always felt it deserves its day in front of the board.

The issue sparked some public comment at the committee meeting with people speaking on both sides of the issue. Kautza says it really just asks a question.

It would just confirm that we support the Second Amendment and the Constitution.

Shawano County Sheriff Adam Bieber has been asking for this vote to take place and says it is important not only that it passes, but who votes yes.

It reaffirms their commitment to uphold the Constitution and the oath that they took.

Bieber says to him, it does not stop with the 2nd Amendment.

I would like to see all of them vote yes on it and I would love another vote that would show support for the rest of the Bill of Rights. Nobody really knows where our representatives stand until they have to vote on something.

The vote will take place at the County Board meeting next Wednesday at 3:00pm. The meeting will take place at the County Board Room and the public is welcome to attend.

Read the rest here:
2nd Amendment To Be Voted on In Shawano County - tchdailynews.com