Mediaboss Marketing

U.S. Jurisdictions resolved to not enforce certain gun control laws

Second Amendment sanctuary refers to resolutions adopted by some jurisdictions in the United States to not expend resources to enforce certain gun control measures perceived as violative of the Second Amendment. Examples include the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance in Oregon[1] and the Second Amendment Protection Act in Kansas.[2] The "sanctuary" nomenclature is an allusion to sanctuary cities, jurisdictions that have resolved to not assist federal enforcement of immigration laws against illegal aliens.[3][4][5][6]

On September 10, 2013, Governor Sean Parnell signed HB 69.[7][8] The text can be read here.[9]

On March 19, 2014, Governor Butch Otter signed SB 1332.[10][11] The text can be read here.[12] Previously, HJM 3 was passed in 2009.[13] That text can be read here.[14]

On April 16, 2013, Governor Sam Brownback signed the Second Amendment Protection Act.[15][2] The text can be read here.[16]

35 out of 64 counties have adopted Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions:[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]

62 out of 102 counties and 1 city have adopted Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions:[28][29][30][31][32]

3 out of 23 counties have adopted Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions:[33]

Eureka sheriffs have vowed to defy the universal background check law in response to the universal background check law passed in February 2019.[34]

4 out of 16 counties have adopted Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions:[35]

30 out of 33 county sheriffs have signed a letter by the New Mexico Sheriffs Association vowing to not assist in enforcing certain gun control.[36]

25 out of 33 counties have adopted Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions;[37][38] Taos initially passed a resolution[39] but later repealed it.[40]

The SAFE Act was passed in 2013. After passage, New York counties started passing resolutions opposing the SAFE Act. There are currently 52 out of 62 counties with such resolutions. The New York State Sheriffs Association sued to block the law.[48]

1 out of 62 counties and 1 town have adopted resolutions against some gun control:[49]

1 out of 100 counties have adopted Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions:[50]

13 out of 36 counties have adopted Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions:[51][52][53][54]

24 out of 39 counties have sheriffs that have vowed to not enforce I-1639 while it is being challenged in court:[55][56][57]

View post:
Second Amendment sanctuary - Wikipedia

Thegovernor of New Mexico took to Twitter on Tuesday and criticized a wave of"Second Amendment Sanctuary" resolutions passed bycounties across the state.

More than half of the state's33 counties have passedresolutions in opposition to a series of what they calledgun control bills being considered by the state Legislature. Such sanctuary resolutions often say sheriffs should not have to enforce measures they consider unconstitutional. Officials have said the resolutions are symbolic in nature.

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat,criticized the movement in a series of Tweets: "A few law enforcement officers in this state have been making noise about how they wont enforce gun safety measures because they dont like them. Thats not how laws work, of course, and its not how oaths of office work either."

Grisham wrote she would continue to advocate for gun reforms, despite"NRA propaganda, rogue sheriffs throwing a childish pity party or bad-faith critics."

Opponents of the legislation specifically a bill that wouldexpand background checks on gun sales have said it wouldviolate the Second Amendment by requiring the creation of a statewide gun registry to facilitate background checks.

Feb. 28: U.S. House passes bill extending time for background checks for guns

Feb. 25: Dick's Sporting Goods CEO Ed Stack still takes tough stance on guns a year after Parkland

"I take an oath to uphold the constitution, and I enforce all lawful laws that do not infringe on my constitutional rights, Mike Herrington, Chaves County Sheriff, told the USA TODAY Network.

Grisham disputed that position in her comments: "Background checks are constitutional. Courts have repeatedly upheld that. Its not debatable."

New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham shown in this Tuesday, Jan. 29, 2019 file photo criticized a wave of"Second Amendment Sanctuary" resolutions passed bycounties across the state.(Photo: Morgan Lee, AP)

House Minority Leader Jim Townsend, R-Artesia,said Grisham's comments incorrectly minimized the opposition to the legislation:Thousands across New Mexico are filling county commission meetings to stand against her bills, I guess theyre rogue too."

Among the gun bills advancing through the legislature:

Grisham made national headlines in early February for her stance against President Donald Trump's assertion that there is a national security crisis at the southern border with Mexico. Shewithdrew the majority of National Guard troopsdeployed at the state's southern border on Feb. 5.

Contributing: Jessica Onsurez, Carlsbad Current-Argus;The Associated Press

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/28/new-mexico-governor-criticizes-second-amendment-sanctuary-movement/3022175002/

Read the original post:
'Second Amendment Sanctuary' movement called a 'childish pity ...

The second amendment has become a badge and bumper sticker, a shield for gun activists and scripture for much of the American right. But like other cherished texts, it is not as clear as many make it out to be.

The amendment 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.

For most of the republics lifespan, from 1791 to 2008, those commas and clauses were debated by attorneys and senators, slave owners and freedmen, judges, Black Panthers, governors and lobbyists. For some, the militia was key; for others the right that shall not be infringed; for yet others, the question of states versus the federal government. For the most part, the supreme court stayed out it.

Americans have been thinking about the second amendment as an individual right for generations, said Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA and author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. You can find state supreme courts in the mid-1800s where judges say the second amendment protects an individual right.

But for the 70 years or so before a supreme court decision in 2008, he said, the supreme court and federal courts held that it only applied in the context of militias, the right of states to protect themselves from federal interference.

In 2008, the supreme court decided the District of Columbia v Heller, 5-4 , overturning a handgun ban in the city. The conservative justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion in narrow but unprecedented terms: for the first time in the countrys history, the supreme court explicitly affirmed an individuals right to keep a weapon at home for self-defense.

Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, saying the decision showed disrespect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on the court, and for the rule of law itself. Two years later, he dissented from another decision favoring gun rights, writing:

The reasons that motivated the framers to protect the ability of militiamen to keep muskets, or that motivated the Reconstruction Congress to extend full citizenship to freedmen in the wake of the Civil War, have only a limited bearing on the question that confronts the homeowner in a crime-infested metropolis today.

This fight over history, waged by supreme court justices and unlikely allies and foes, goes all the way back.

People look at the same record and come to wildly different conclusions about what the view was in the 18th century, in the 19th century, said Nicholas Johnson, a Fordham University law professor who argues against Winklers view of 20th-century case law.

Attempts to parse original intent go all the way back to the revolution and its aftermath, when the countrys founders bickered about what exactly they were talking about. Carl Bogus, a law professor at Roger Williams University, has argued that James Madison wrote the second amendment in part to reassure his home state of Virginia, where slave owners were terrified of revolts and wary of northerners who would undermine the system.

The militia were at that stage almost exclusively a slave-control tool in the south, he said. You gave Congress the power to arm the militia if Congress chooses not to arm our militia, well, we all know what happens.

The federalist Madisons compromise, according to Bogus, was to promise a bill of rights. After weeks of tense debate, his federalists narrowly won the vote to ratify the constitution. He writes an amendment that gives the states the right to have an armed militia, by the people arming themselves.

A year later, the federal government passed a law requiring every man eligible for his local militia to acquire a gun and register with authorities. (The law was only changed in 1903.)

After the civil war, second amendment rights were again debated by Congress, which abolished militias in the former Confederate states and passed the 1866 Civil Rights Act, explicitly protecting freed slaves right to bear arms. A century later, the founders of the Black Panthers took up guns, symbolically and literally, to press for equal civil rights in California.

The states conservative lawmakers promptly took up the cause of gun control. In 1967, Governor Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act, banning the public carry of loaded guns in cities. The governor said he saw no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.

Reagan later supported the Brady Act, a gun control law named after his aide, who was shot during an assassination attempt on Reagan in Washington DC. The National Rifle Association supported the Mulford Act but opposed the Brady Act, signed into law 26 years later.

Winkler, the UCLA professor, said that during the 1970s, a revolt among the membership profoundly altered the NRA overnight. Since the 1930s, the group had supported restrictions on machine guns and public carry, but angry hardliners took control over the organization in 1977, when moderates wanted to retreat from lobbying work. The group then began a decades-long campaign to popularize its uncompromising positions.

The NRA goes far beyond what the second amendment requires people walking around with permits, on college campuses, Winkler said. Their argument is its a fundamental right and freedom. People care more about values than they care about policy.

In the late 1990s, several prominent liberal attorneys, such as Laurence Tribe and Akhil Reed Amar, also argued for an individual right while advocating gun regulation. Gun control activists say they have not changed tack since the supreme courts 2008 decision. Scalia wrote a narrow opinion and listed several exceptions, such as bans on unusual and dangerous weapons and sales to domestic abusers and people with mental illness. He also wrote that states and cities could ban firearms from places like government buildings.

Lower courts have upheld many gun laws around the country since 2008, and the supreme court has declined to hear any second amendment cases since 2010. Attorneys and activists on both sides expect a looming fight over the right to carry guns in public, which the Heller decision does not address.

The courts generally strike a balance between the need for lawmakers to protect public safety and this notion of second amendment rights, said Avery Gardiner, co-president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. The Heller decision, she said, was entirely consistent with gun laws like background checks.

Theres a mythology here that the supreme court has said something about the second amendment that it hasnt, she said. I think most Americans dont like reading the footnotes.

More:
The right to bear arms: what does the second amendment really ...

Standard Capacity 223 Magazine

U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- In a split decision, a three judge panel at the Third Circuit Court of Appeals effectively ruled the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights is a second-rate right, not entitled to the full protections of other enumerated rights. The opinion was filed on 5 December, 2018. The case is Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Attorney General New Jersey, No. 18-3170 (3rd Cir. 2018).

The two majority judges followed the trend of other Circuits where the Second Amendment is being degraded and reduced to second-rate status. Only a month ago, the First Circuit ruled the Second Amendment does not apply outside of the home.

The rogue Circuits are able to do this because the Supreme Court has been refusing to hear Second Amendment cases for nearly a decade. The Supreme Court only hears a limited number of cases. They are not required to hear all cases.

Some Circuit courts are gutting the Second Amendment by claiming it is not really a right. Rather, they say, it is a privilege the government may regulate if the government thinks it might do some good to regulate it. These Jurists seem embarrassed by the Second Amendment. They seem to believe their job is to limit it as much as possible, rather than to protect it as a fundamental right.

Judge Stephano Bibas wrote the dissenting opinion in the Third Circuit ruling. He is an outstanding jurist who was appointed by President Trump. At only 49 years old, he is already the 15th most cited jurist by the Supreme Court. His resume is impressive. It is easy to see why President Trump chose to appoint him. His dissent runs to 19 pages. The first four paragraphs eviscerates the majority decision. From uscourts.gov:

The Second Amendment is an equal part of the Bill of Rights. We must treat the right to keep and bear arms like other enumerated rights, as the Supreme Court insisted in Heller. We may not water it down and balance it away based on our own sense of wise policy. 554 U.S. at 634-35.

Yet the majority treats the Second Amendment differently in two ways. First, it weighs the merits of the case to pick a tier of scrutiny. That puts the cart before the horse. For all other rights, we pick a tier of scrutiny based only on whether the law impairs the core right. The Second Amendments core is the right to keep weapons for defending oneself and ones family in ones home. The majority agrees that this is the core. So whenever a law impairs that core right, we should apply strict scrutiny, period. That is the case here.

Second, though the majority purports to use intermediate scrutiny, it actually recreates the rational-basis test forbidden by Heller. It suggests that this record favors the government, but make no mistakethat is not what the District Court found. The majority repeatedly relies on evidence that the District Court did not rely on and expert testimony that the District Court said was of little help. 2018 WL 4688345, at *8. It effectively flips the burden of proof onto the challengers, treating both contested evidence and the lack of evidence as conclusively favoring the government.

Whether strict or intermediate scrutiny applies, we should require real evidence that the law furthers the governments aim and is tailored to that aim. But at key points, the majority substitutes anecdotes and armchair reasoning for the concrete proof that we demand for heightened scrutiny anywhere else. New Jersey has introduced no expert study of how similar magazine restrictions have worked elsewhere. Nor did the District Court identify any other evidence, as opposed to armchair reasoning, that illuminated how this law will reduce the harm from mass shootings. Id. at *12-13. So New Jersey cannot win unless the burden of proof lies with the challengers. It does not.

If the Supreme Court grants a writ of certiorari (the legal term for agreeing to hear a case before the Supreme Court), Judge Bibas' reasoning is rock solid.

For those who do not follow these cases closely, here is a short explanation of the different levels of scrutiny.

Strict Scrutiny The highest level of protection, reserved for fundamental Constitutional rights. To pass this level of legal examination, a law, regulation, or other restriction of a Constitutional right must be required by a compelling state interest, and the restriction must be narrowly tailored to achieve that result. The burden of proof is on the government.

For example: There is a general prohibition on shouting Fire in a crowded theater, when there is no fire. This is a restriction on the First Amendment right of freedom of speech. The prohibition serves a compelling state interest of public safety. The restriction is narrowly tailored to ban shouting false information that causes severe, direct, physical, harm to others.

A corollary for the Second Amendment would be a general prohibition on firing a gun in a crowded theater when there is no reasonable, deadly threat.

Intermediate Scrutiny- The middle level of protection of less than fundamental rights. The law or regulation must serve an important government objective, and be substantially related to achieving that objective. The burden of proof rests with the government. This level is fairly new, only existing since 1976.

Rational Basis The lowest level of protection. Generally not applied to rights. It essentially is no protection at all. The party challenging the law or rule has the burden of proof. They have to show the government has *no* legitimate interest in the law, rule, or policy. They have to show there is *no* conceivable rational basis for the law, even if the government never stated one. Laws, rules, or policies are almost never struck down on this basis.

Judge Bibas shows the two majority judges collapsed the level of scrutiny from strict scrutiny to rational basis, while calling it intermediate scrutiny.

Second Amendment supporters know the Third Circuit ignored the rule of law and applied their own, cherished, leftist, Progressive, biases to gut Second Amendment protections in this case.

Judge Bibas, in his masterful dissent, shows how they did it.

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Read this article:
Third Circuit: Second Amendment is a Second Rate Right

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution recognizes the need for a well regulated Militia to secure a free nation, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms for that purpose. The Amendment, adopted on December 15, 1791, as party of the Bill of Rights, pertains to the rights of individuals under federal law, but is not without limitations. To explore this concept, consider the following Second Amendment definition.

Origin Adopted on December 15, 1791

Prior to the approval of the United States Constitution, U.S. law was based largely on the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This Bill of Rights declared that weapons are allowed by law, but it did not prevent the government from disarming people if they were considered dangerous to themselves or others. While there is no question that the Second Amendment was heavily influenced on English law, many Americans believe that its abbreviated language is subject to interpretation.

The Second Amendment specifically does not prohibit the governments ability to regulate firearms or other similar devices, nor ownership of them. The Second Amendment builds on the belief that people have the right to self defense, and a civic duty to act in defense of the country.

As British settlers began claiming land in America, they carried with them the belief that they had a right to bear arms, participate in law enforcement, and to organize a militia system. In the 1760s, colonists who had formed militias split into two factions: the Loyalists who supported British rule, and the Patriots, who promoted independence.

As Loyalist militias began to stockpile arms, the British Parliament placed an embargo on firearms, ammunition, and parts to create both on the American colonies. Patriots protested the Crowns attempt to disarm their militias, claiming they had a common law right to self defense. This dispute in the early American Revolution sparked a debate over the right to bear arms, which eventually became a part of American law, and for many continues today.

The U.S. Constitution is regarded as the highest law in the nation, and all other laws created are based on its framework. Not only does the Constitution outline the creation of the government, but it lists the rights afforded to the people.

The Constitution came about when a group of politicians, also known as the Framers of the Constitution, came together for the purpose of defining the rights of the citizens. This group of men included James Madison, George Washington, and Ben Franklin, who met at a Convention from May to September of 1787.

Once the Framers agreed on the language of the Constitution, it needed to be approved by each of the 13 states, though once approved by the first 9 states, the Constitution was considered ratified. Because the Framers knew the Constitution was not, and could never be perfect, they created an amendment process so that changes could be made as needed.

Many people originally opposed the Constitution because it lacked provisions that protected people from acts of the government. In 1791, Congress approved the Bill of Rights that had been proposed years earlier.

James Madison proposed the Bill of Rights to the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789. The proposal included the right of the people to bear arms and a right to form a well-regulated militia in order to maintain the security of the country. Madison raised the issue again the following month, this time proposing that a committee be created in order to report upon the bill.

The House agreed, and the established committee rewrote the Second Amendment, which was approved on August 17, 1789. That same month, the House debated the Amendment and made additional changes to it, mainly concerning the formation of a militia. On August 24, 1782, the modified version made its way to the Senate. After a few more changes were made, and the Bill of Rights was returned to the House where the changes were accepted on September 21, 1789. The Bill of Rights was officially adopted as part of the United States Constitution on December 15, 1971.

After Congress ratified the Second Amendment, public opposition quickly began. Federalists and Anti-Federalists both showed reluctance to creating militias, which were essentially armed police forces. In 1792, however, Congress passed an act designed to establish police forces throughout the country. It also established rules and regulations for enrolling into a militia, which became known as the draft.

In 1794, the first major test against the Second Amendment took place when a group of Pennsylvania Farmers decided to rebel against federal tax collectors, whom they saw as agents of tyrannical power. Four states joined with Pennsylvania to suppress the uprising, but they failed. This was only the beginning of the failures and losses that the countrys militia would experience in the next 20 years. These losses led to the reform of the police and military throughout the United States.

Though many early reforms and changes took place concerning the police forces and the militia, controversy surrounding the Second Amendment continues to be a part of American society. Some groups have interpreted the Amendment as the right of each state to maintain and form their own militia units in order to keep themselves protected from the infringement of the federal government. Their standpoint is that the right to bear arms is only a right afforded to organized groups of militia, and that the federal government cannot abolish or regulate these state militias.

The opposition believes that the Second Amendment gives citizens the undeniable right to bear arms, and that state and federal governments cannot restrict these rights.

Both sides of the argument have long contributed to the Second Amendment gun control debate that remains a central issue in the U.S. Some groups have even organized to fight for what they believe. An example is the National Rifle Association, which argues that all people have the right to own a gun, and that there can be no restriction on the types of firearms citizens own. On the opposite end of the spectrum is the Brady Campaign, which supports strict gun control. This group believes that the government should determine who owns a gun, which guns they can own, and the conditions afforded to them.

The controversy over the Second Amendment does not end with public opinion or organized groups, as the Supreme Court has heard several cases concerning the issue. It is likely that the courts will continue hearing cases and issuing judicial decisions pertaining to the right to bear arms, as it remains a highly debated topic around the country.

In 1876 case of U.S. v Cruikshank, the U.S. Supreme Court made one of its first rulings on the issue of gun control. In this case, the concerned Ku Klux Klan members refusing black citizens their basic rights, including the right to bear arms. The court ruled in favor of the Klan by stating that the Constitution did not specifically state that each person was entitled to the right to bear arms.

In 1886, the court ruled again on the subject during the case of Presser v Illinois. This decision backed up the Courts previous decision by stating that the Second Amendment pertained only to the federal governments limitation of gun ownership, and not to the rights of each individual state.

In 1894, another ruling came about in Miller v Texas. This case involved an argument by a man named Franklin Miller that his right to carry a concealed firearm was granted by the Second Amendment regardless of any state laws. The court disagreed with Miller, stating that the Amendment did not pertain to state laws.

In the 1939 case of United States v Jack Miller, police arrested known bank robber Jack Miller and his associate, Frank Layton, for carrying an unregistered gun across state lines, which was prohibited by the National Firearms Act. The men claimed that the Act violated their Second Amendment rights, but the court disagreed. The court ruled that the Amendment allows the government to regulate ownership of certain types of firearms, including fully automatic firearms and short-barreled rifles and shotguns.

The 2008 case of the District of Columbia v Heller involved Dick Heller, a Washington D.C. police officer, who challenged the capitals ban on handguns. This landmark Supreme Court decision held that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to possess firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self defense within the home. This was the first Supreme Court ruling protecting individual rights to keep and bear arms for self defense.

The 2010 landmark case of McDonald v Chicago arose from the argument of three men that the state of Illinois ban on registered handguns violated their Second Amendment rights. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the right of individuals to keep and bear arms is indeed incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore applies to the states as well as the federal government.

More:
2nd Amendment - Legal Dictionary