Mediaboss Marketing

Australians have long been wary of Americas Second Amendment. Last weeks fatal shooting of an innocent Australian woman in Minnesota has only stoked their fears.

Justine Damond, 40, had called the police to report a local crime in Minneapolis. In the midst of some confusion, the officers she had called ended up accidentally shooting her to death.

In the aftermath of the tragedy, Australian media is fuming over Americas relaxed gun laws. Australia has some of the strictest gun laws in the world - why can't America learn from them, they wonder.

A Daily Telegraph headline read, AMERICAN NIGHTMARE.

This country is infested with possibly more guns than people, Philip Alpers, a gun policy analyst from the University of Sydney, told the Associated Press.

Its not just the media that want answers. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull alsowants the U.S. to address the shocking shooting.

"How can a woman out in the street in her pyjamas seeking assistance from the police be shot like that?" he asked.

"It is a shocking killing, it is inexplicable.

"Yes, we are demanding answers on behalf of her family and our hearts go out to her family and all of her friends and loved ones."

More details emerged Wednesday into what transpired in the moments before the shooting. An officer reportedly heard a loud noise on the scene, leading to the deadly confusion.

Near the end of the alley, a loud sound startled Harrity. A moment later, Justine Damond, the woman who had called 911, approached the drivers side of the squad car. Suddenly a surprise burst of gunfire blasted past Harrity as Noor fired through the squads open window, striking Damond in the abdomen.

The two officers began lifesaving efforts, but within 20 minutes Damond was dead.

O.J. Simpson Granted Parole

See the article here:
Australians Sound Off on Second Amendment After Fatal Shooting - Townhall

By Dean Weingarten

Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- In August, 2016, two professors from the University of Austin, Texas, and an Associate Teaching Assistant Professor, sued the Attorney General of Texas, Ken Paxton, the President of the University of Texas, Austin, and the Members of the Board of Regents of the University of Texas at Austin.

A number of frivolous claims were offered in an attempt to stop the Texas statute allowing exercise of the Second Amendment on Campus from going into effect.

The claims included that the law is vague, the law violated the plaintiffs' First Amendment, Second Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The arguments were childish, irrational, emotional rants.

Here is an example:

48. The Texas statutes and university policies that prohibit Plaintiffs from exercising their individual option to forbid handguns in their classrooms violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied in Texas through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. These policies and procedures deprive Plaintiffs of their Second Amendment right to defend themselves and others in their classrooms from handgun violence by compelling them as public employees to passively acquiesce in the presence of loaded weaponry in their place of public employment without the individual possession and use of such weaponry in public being well-regulated. This infringement lacks any important justification and is imposed without any substantial link between the objectives of the policies and the means chosen to achieve them.

Judge Lee Yeakel heard the claims, read the suit, and concluded that the plaintiffs had no standing because they had not suffered any harm.

From reporternews.com:

A federal judge has dismissed a long-shot lawsuit filed by three University of Texas at Austin professors seeking to overturn the state's 2015 campus carry law, which allows people to carry concealed handguns inside most public university buildings.

District Judge Lee Yeakel wrote in his decision that the professors Jennifer Lynn Glass, Lisa Moore and Mia Carter couldn't present any concrete evidence to substantiate their fears that campus carry would have a chilling effect on free speech.

From the decision, at texasattorneygeneral.gov(pdf):

The court concludes that Plaintiffs have not established an injury-in-fact, nor that the alleged injury is traceable to any conduct of Defendants. Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 180-81. Accordingly, the court will dismiss this cause for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Crane v. Johnson, 783 F.3d 244,251 (5th Cir. 2015). (Because [appellants] have not alleged a sufficient injury in fact to satisfy the requirements of constitutional standing, we dismiss their claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.)

III. CONCLUSION

IT IS ORDERED that UT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (Clerk's Doc. No. 64) and Defendant Ken Paxton's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint (Clerk's Doe. No. 65) are GRANTED

The results of the lawsuit are were expected. The claims were frivolous to those who actually read them.

It took nearly a year for the court to reach that conclusion. Some Minnesota students attempted to duplicate the Texas protests. No serious incidents have been associated with the restoration of Second Amendment freedoms on Campus. Other than the Minnesota copy cat protests, protests related to Texas Campus Carry have withered away. 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.

More here:
Anti-Second Amendment Academics Shot Down in Texas Case - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

NORTHWEST ARKANSAS - Your right to bear arms in Arkansas could be taken away if you apply for a medical marijuana card. According to the Arkansas Department of Health, you can't have both a medical marijuana card and legally own a gun because pot is still illegal on the federal level.

Robert Reed, a Navy Veteran who served his country for 16 year, suffers PTSD along medical conditions which medical marijuana would help.

Reed said, "I will not apply for a med license, and risk my livelihood and my safety."

The Arkansas Department of Health said a question they get all the time is whether or not you can own a gun and possess a medical marijuana ID card. Since prescription pot is a Schedule 1 controlled substance, under federal law, you can't own a gun legally. And federal law supersedes state law.

"If they're a user of marijuana, although legal in Arkansas, it's still illegal on the federal level," explained Robert Brech with Arkansas Department of Health. "It's very clear you cannot be a marijuana user, and pass that check."

Reed, and other veterans who fought for Constitutional rights, will not apply for their medical marijuana cards due to putting the freedom they fought for at risk.

"You've got a law that outlaws the people that defended your right to make a law that puts me in jail," said Reed.

"You won't be denied the medical marijuana card. There's actually a provision in the Constitutional amendment that you can't be denied a license. So they may continue to give a conceal carry license to someone. It's really a problem at the federal level, not the state level," explained Brech.

"How can I have health and freedom by giving up a right? I can't," said Reed.

View post:
Medical Marijuana means Losing Your Second Amendment Right - KNWA

Editor:

Too often when liberals, in general, read the Constitution they pick and choose the wording they want to follow. Armed Teachers a Bad Idea (published in the July 11 edition of the Uinta County Herald) is a perfect example of this. To make my point, in italics is the whole Second Amendment:

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.

Of course, liberals with their typical big-government beliefs will only see the words well regulated and it stops there.

The first question I have to ask is who are the militia? By definition they are a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army.

So, we, the people, are the militia, and in order to keep a free state around the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Does it say what kind of weapons I can and cant own? No, it doesnt. A group of men known as the founders had just spent years fighting a tyrannical government with the same weapons the government had.

So, the second the government makes any law restricting people from owning the type of weaponry they can afford and desire, they are in violation of the Second Amendment.

For all of the Christians out there, Luke 22:36 says, Then said he unto them, but now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Its plain and simple that you should own and familiarize yourself with weapons.

And now onto the part that really just confused me more than anything. What about the childs psyche? Most of us have been around or involved with firearms since we were children. Some of us parked off school property so we could leave our rifles in our trucks and go hunting after school.

Guns dont commit crimes and criminals dont care about laws.

I read the comments on the website and I have to applaud most of you for actually giving it traffic. However, there are a few things I would like to clarify.

I took an oath 10 years ago. I was disqualified from serving due to my medical record but I still took an oath; to some people that means something. Secondly, I agree that teachers need sufficient training breach and clear techniques need to be taught.

Finally, I am not a gun nut, I just understand the Constitution as what it is, a legal document.

Patrick Ballinger

Evanston

Read more from the original source:
Letter: Understanding the Second Amendment - Uinta County Herald

The would-be foster parents, William and Jill Johnson, were trying to secure custody of their grandson when William was reportedly told he had to hand over the serial numbers for every gun in the home to complete the process.William claims the caseworker said, If you want to care for your grandson you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb told Breitbart News that this sacrifice of Second Amendment rights includes having no guns for self-protection at home or carried on ones person. And in a press release sent to Breitbart News, SAF pointed out that aGogebic County Court judge allegedly told Williams he had to comply with caseworkers gun control request if he wanted the foster acquisition to succeed.

According to the SAF press release,

The policy of the MDHHS, by implementing requirements and restrictions that are actually functional bans on the bearing of firearms for self-defense, both in and out of the home, completely prohibits foster and adoptive parents, and those who would be foster or adoptive parents, from the possession and bearing of readily-available firearms for the purpose of self-defense. This violates Plaintiffs constitutional rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

The release quoted Gottlieb saying, The statements from the caseworker and judge are simply outrageous. This amounts to coercion, with a child as their bartering chip. I cannot recall ever hearing anything so offensive and egregious, and weve handled cases like this in the past. Blatantly telling someone they must give up their civil rights in order to care for their own grandchild is simply beyond the pale.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host ofBullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter:@AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Here is the original post:
2nd Amendment Foundation Files Suit: Alleges Foster Parents Forced to Give Up Gun Rights for Child - Breitbart News