Mediaboss Marketing

By Dean Weingarten

Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- In Wrenn v D.C., the D.C. Court of appeals ruled that the right to keep and bear arms applied outside of the home. The majority opinion in the three judge panel was well written.

One option of the District of Columbia was to ask for an en banc hearing, where all the courts judges would hear the case, instead of the three judge panel that made the decision.

As expected, the district has exercised its option to ask for an en banc hearing. From saf.org:

BELLEVUE, WA The District of Columbia has filed an appeal with the U.S. District Court of Appeals requesting an en banc hearing in a case recently won by the Second Amendment Foundation that struck down the good reason requirement for obtaining a concealed carry permit. The case is Wrenn v. District of Columbia. The Second Amendment Foundation expected the City of Washington, DC to file this appeal in an attempt to try to overturn our court victory that said their virtual ban on the right to carry a firearm for self-protection was unconstitutional, said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.

A decision on the request is normally given in seven days. There are 11 active and 5 senior judges on the D.C. District Court of Appeals. If the request for the en banc hearing is accepted, 6 active judges need to vote to accept the request.

There were two active judges on the three judge panel. One voted for the decision and 1 voted against it. The senior judge on the panel was in the majority.

The D.C. Circuit only grants en banc review to .2 percent of the cases it hears. The arguments in Wrenn are clear and convincing. But the case could be considered so important that an en ban review is justified.

From the decision:

Our first question is whether the Amendments core extends to publicly carrying guns for self-defense. The District argues that it does not, citing Heller Is observation that the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute in the home. Id. at 628. But the fact that the need for self-defense is most pressing in the home doesnt mean that self-defense at home is the only right at the Amendments core. After all, the Amendments core lawful purpose is self-defense, id. at 630, and the need for that might arise beyond as well as within the home. Moreover, the Amendments text protects the right to bearas well as keeparms. For both reasons, its more natural to view the Amendments core as including a law-abiding citizens right to carry common firearms for self-defense beyond the home (subject again to relevant longstanding regulations like bans on carrying in sensitive places). Id. at 626.

This reading finds support in parts of Heller I that speak louder than the Courts aside about where the need for guns is most acute. That remark appears when Heller I turns to the particular ban on possession at issue there. By then the Court has spent over fifty pages giving independent and seemingly equal treatments to the right to keep and to bear, first defining those phrases and then teasing out their implications. See id. at 570-628. In that long preliminary analysis, the Court elaborates that to bear means to wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person. Id. at 584 (quoting Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting)). That definition shows that the Amendments core must span, in the Courts own words, the right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. Id. at 592 (emphasis added).

We should know if the Circuit grants review in a week. If they do not grant an en banc review, expect the District of Columbia to appeal the case to the Supreme Court.

2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Link to Gun Watch

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 more from the original source:
DC Requests Hearing on Protection of Second Amendment Rights - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Politically correct garbage has polluted what Americans hear in the media, especially when it comes to guns. We give big kudos to those who stick their necks out for the Constitution but really, they are few and far between. The gun community has really taken it on the chin, and we are frustrated when our friends remain silent, offering little to no support when the SecondAmendment is literally being pulled like a rug from beneath us.

Gun Owners of California (GOC) thinks it is time to play a little hardballwith our friends. We are switching things up for 2018and the change might be painful for politicians whose support of the Second Amendment has been unenthusiastic.

In short, GOC is making a shift in how our legislative scorecard is calculated. Why? Because each election cycle, we field countless requests for endorsements from legislatorsandcandidates who voice their fist-pumping, fiery commitment to the Second Amendment. But once elected, it seems much of the enthusiasm wanes. Therefore, while there are a decent number of legislators who have solid voting records, there are very few willing to stand with us when the going gets toughalthough thats precisely when we need them most.

GOC has decided no legislator gets an A unless they either introduce and move pro-Second Amendment legislation forward and/or vocally stand up for us and the Second Amendment community as a whole. Talking the talk just is not enough anymore; they must walk the walk. We are sick and tired of hearing other issues are more important.

Just last week, the silence was deafening when no one rose in Californias Assembly to oppose a bill that places outlandish security requirements on firearm retailers. This is like giving the left a free pass to violate us.

Our new policy will likely annoy some, but given the leftist structure of the legislature, there is no room for the politically lukewarm. The Second Amendment is as important today as when our nation was foundedand this is because it guarantees the First Amendment and every amendment that follows. Gun Owners of California will never just go along to get along.

This policy should not be exclusive to California. The left has its eyes on every stateno matter how red or blue. In the words of Abraham Lincoln,I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong.

Sam Paredes is executive director of Gun Owners of California and a guest columnist for Down Range with AWR Hawkins.

See original here:
Sam Paredes: Stand Up for the Second Amendment or Step Aside - Breitbart News

To the editor:

When gun fanatics tell me they have a Constitutional right to bear arms, with virtually no restrictions whatsoever, I ask them if they're planning to go searching for runaway slaves. For that is one of the primary drivers for the Second Amendment, enacted in 1791, just after the First Amendment protecting free speech. To be fair there was a second driver of the Second Amendment: Indian removal. The colonists looked west at the lush land inhabited for centuries by indigenous peoples and said, "We want that." King George demanded the colonists stay put in the 13 colonies and levied taxes to be paid in English pounds to pay for soldiers sent to enforce that edit the colonists feverishly ignored. Voila! The Declaration of Independence and revolution.

Once free of hated George III, the colonists formed militias and embarked on westward expansion, initiating a century-long plunder of Native Americans' wealth. And gun ownership was key to the marauding militias, hence thesecond driver of the famous: "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." What did you expect them to enshrine?: "A well regulated militia being necessaryto capture runaway slaves and clear Indians from the west, the right of thepeople to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Walt Zlotow

Glen Ellyn

Continue reading here:
Letter: Drivers of Second Amendment - Suburban Life Publications

Dear Editor,

Second Amendment enthusiasts, is this what you had in mind? Does the march in Charlottesville by neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and white supremacists represent the ultimate expression of our right to bear arms?

Was anyone else a bit taken aback by the sight of American Youth for Hitler armed with helmets, shields, and semiautomatics, parading in torch light, shouting Jews will never replace us and Blood and Soil?

Or is it just me?

Excuse me, where does it say in the Second Amendment that we have the right to bear arms for purposes of intimidation and threat? Or am I mistaken, and those guns were on display simply to show pride in Americas military heritage?

My right to free speech does not permit me to shout Fire! in a crowded theater just for the fun of watching terrified people scramble. Does the legislated right to carry arms openly allow hate groups to file down our streets in military formation, groups that preach hostility and have a history of violence ? To use our public parks to sermonize as their centurions with AK-47s stare down protesters or passersby?

Advertisement

If we view the Second Amendment as absolute and as expansive as its fiercest supporters advocate and if we suspend our ability to make judgments about limits to rights that threaten public safety, Charlottesville will not be the last or the worst act of domestic terrorism committed under the banner of American greatness.

Tom Denton

Highland, N.Y.

Continued here:
LETTER: Abusing the Second Amendment to intimidate is prelude to tragedy - The Daily Freeman

Led by West Virginia's Patrick Morrisey, the attorneys general ask the court to consider whether the lower court inappropriately limited the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms by banning certain firearms typically owned by citizens by finding that those firearms would be most useful for military service.

Joining West Virginia's effort are the attorneys general from Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

"We thank Attorney General Morrissey and the 20 other attorneys general who stand in respect of the rights of their citizens to keep and bear arms," said Lawrence G. Keane, Senior Vice President and General Counsel for NSSF. "This is demonstrative of a widespread belief that Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overreached in their creation of a unique standard and twisted the guidance and wisdom of the Heller decision. We are encouraged and grateful that with this petition will be an opportunity to establish that our rights don't end at a state's border."

The attorneys general argue in their brief that the Supreme Court's Heller decision established "in common use at the time for lawful purposes" and those "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes," as an individual right, and that Maryland's modern sporting rifle ban "amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of arms." The petition adds the Fourth Circuit adopted a "novel standard" in interpreting Heller and would replace the "common use" standard with a subjective judicial review of military use for firearms.

The attorneys general argue that review of the case provides an opportunity for the Supreme Court to clarify the scope of the Heller decision. Lower courts have issued disparate rulings and that has led to confusion concerning how Second Amendment rights are interpreted for citizens in different states.

About NSSFThe National Shooting Sports Foundation is the trade association for the firearms industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of more than 12,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen's organizations and publishers. For more information, visit http://www.nssf.org.

View original content:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nssf-21-state-attorneys-general-defend-second-amendment-rights-in-kolbe-v-hogan-case-300510369.html

SOURCE National Shooting Sports Foundation

NSSF | The Firearm Industry Trade Association

Follow this link:
NSSF: 21 State Attorneys General Defend Second Amendment Rights in Kolbe v. Hogan Case - PR Newswire (press release)