Mediaboss Marketing

A federal appeals court on Tuesday blocked the District from enforcing strict limits on carrying concealed firearms in public, restrictions that police officials have said are necessary to promote public safety in the nations capital.

In a 2-to-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the Districts system, which requires a good reason to obtain a permit, is akin to an outright ban in violation of the Second Amendment.

The good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on most D.C. residents right to carry a gun in the face of ordinary self-defense needs, wrote Judge Thomas B. Griffith, who was joined by Judge Stephen F. Williams.

Bans on the ability of most citizens to exercise an enumerated right would have to flunk any judicial test.

The courts rejection of the Districts permitting system is the latest legal blow for city officials who have been forced to rewrite gun-control regulations ever since the Supreme Court in 2008 used a D.C. case to declare a Second Amendment right to gun ownership. The ruling follows proposals from Republican members of Congress that would require the District to honor concealed-carry permits from other states in the wake of a June shooting at a GOP congressional baseball practice.

[GOP congressman wants his colleagues to be able to carry guns everywhere]

D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine said his office is considering whether to ask the full D.C. Circuit to review Tuesdays decision by a three-judge panel and is committed to fighting for common-sense gun rules.

Griffiths opinion is at odds with rulings from other circuit courts in finding that the Second Amendment guarantees someones right to carry firearms beyond the home for self-defense even in densely populated areas, even for those lacking self-defense needs.

The point of the Amendment isnt to ensure that some guns would find their way into D.C., but that guns would be available to each responsible citizen as a rule, Griffith wrote.

Griffith, a nominee of President George W. Bush, was part of the courts majority in 2007 that overturned the Districts decades-old ban on handguns.

In her dissent Tuesday, Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote that the Districts regulation passes muster because of the citys unique security challenges as the capital and because it does not affect the right to keep a firearm at home.

The court, she wrote, should defer to District officials, including former police chief Cathy L. Lanier, who have backed the permitting system as a way to prevent crime.

The ruling from the three-judge panel gives city officials 30days to decide whether to appeal for review by a full complement of D.C. Circuit judges. If the court does not agree to revisit the case, the order to permanently block enforcement of the good reason requirement would take effect seven days later.

Adam Winkler, a University of California at Los Angeles law professor who has written extensively on the Second Amendment, said he expects the full D.C. Circuit will put Tuesdays decision on hold.

Given the importance of this issue and the prospect that so many of the judges on the D.C. court might not want guns on their streets, they are likely to take this case, Winkler said.

[Appeals court questions D.C.s restrictions on concealed carry of firearms]

Residents who want a permit to carry a concealed firearm in the District must show that they have good reason to fear injury or a proper reason, such as transporting valuables. The regulations specify that living or working in a high crime area shall not by itself qualify as a good reason to carry.

As of July 15, D.C. police had approved 126 concealed-carry licenses and denied 417 applicants, according to the police department.

The Districts concealed-carry rules are similar to those in New Jersey, New York, Maryland and some jurisdictions in California.

The Supreme Court has turned down attempts to challenge decisions by other circuit courts that upheld similar concealed-carry restrictions in Maryland and New Jersey. In June, the high court also declined to review a California concealed-carry law. In that case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said the Second Amendment does not protect the right to carry a concealed weapon in public.

Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, however, said the court should have accepted the California case.

Clark Neily of the Cato Institute, and one of the lawyers in the earlier challenge to D.C.s handgun ban, praised the D.C. Circuit ruling Tuesday as thoroughly researched and carefully reasoned and said it would make an ideal vehicle for the Supreme Court to finally decide whether the Second Amendment applies outside the home.

At oral arguments in September, the D.C. Circuit was reviewing two challenges to the citys law that resulted in conflicting opinions and was asked to decide whether the citys permitting restrictions could remain in place while the broader challenge to the law is litigated.

District officials told the court the restrictions are necessary in a city that struggles with gun violence and faces heightened security challenges because of the number of federal government buildings and public officials.

The challenges were brought by gun owners and gun rights groups, including the Second Amendment Foundation and the Pink Pistols. Backed by Republican attorneys general from more than a dozen states, they told the court the Districts system is unconstitutional because the typical law-abiding citizen cannot obtain a permit.

Robert Barnes and Peter Hermann contributed to this report.

Read the rest here:
Appeals court blocks enforcement of District's strict concealed-carry ... - Washington Post

FAIRFAX, Va. The right to self-defense scored an important victory on Tuesday when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down Washington D.Cs unconstitutional restrictions on issuing concealed carry permits. Today's ruling in Grace v. District of Columbiabuilds on the landmark Supreme Court case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

The Second Amendment protects the fundamental, individual right of Americans to not only keep arms, but also to bear arms. D.C. residents have suffered under a near total ban on their right to carry a firearm for self-defense, said Chris W. Cox, executive director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. Todays ruling is an important step toward protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.

The decision overturns D.C.s requirement that citizens prove they have a good reason to obtain a concealed carry permit. For the overwhelming majority of permit applicants, this results in ade factoprohibition on their right to carry a firearm for self-defense.

In the majority decision, Judge Thomas Griffith wrote At the Second Amendment's core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home", and that "The good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on most D.C. residents right to carry a gun in the face of ordinary self-defense needs.

Governments should not be allowed to take constitutional rights away from law-abiding citizens, Cox concluded. This decision demonstrates that the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense is clearly protected by the Second Amendment.

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. More than five million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services. Be sure to follow the NRA on Facebook at NRA on Facebook and Twitter @NRA.

Link:
Court Strikes Down Unconstitutional Ban on Concealed Carry - NRA ILA

A recent questionable claim we fact-checked stemmed from a discussion about whether to ban assault weapons.

Clickbait websites love to make up fake quotes for celebrities and controversial politicians, hoping to mislead readers into clicking into their content and seeing their ads.

For instance, we recently fact-checked a post accusing former Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., of saying something she didnt say; we rated it Pants on Fire.

Now, as part of Facebooks efforts to fight fake news, we learned that users had flagged as questionable a post from someone Bachmann used to babysit for -- former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson. (Yes, the babysitting part is actually true.)

The claim about Carlson appeared first on a site called therightists.com. It was headlined, "Gretchen Carlson: The 2nd Amendment Was Written Before Guns Were Invented. "

Within days, the item was picked up and reprinted essentially verbatim on other websites. One version got 31,400 shares through July 24.

The accompanying article uses as its launching-off point something that Carlson did actually do -- making an on-air break with conservative orthodoxy by saying, in the wake of the Orlando nightclub mass shooting in 2016, that the assault-weapons ban should be reinstated.

"Do we need AR-15s to hunt and kill deer? Do we need them to protect our families?" she asked on air. "Cant we hold true the sanctity of the Second Amendment while still having common sense?"

These comments drew opposition from gun-rights supporters. Its at this point that the article veers off into fabrication.

The article reads, "Interestingly, when confronted by Second Amendment supporters on Twitter, Carlson doubled down on her pro-ban stance, claiming that the fact that youre even using the Second Amendment as an argument against banning assault weapons shows me youre ignorant. Dont you know the 2nd Amendment was written before guns were even invented? "

This would be a ridiculous claim if shed actually said it.

As schoolchildren are taught, muskets were used in the American Revolution. (Heres an example from the collection of the Museum of the American Revolution.) And the revolution occurred more than a decade before the 1789 drafting and ratification of the Bill of Rights, which includes the 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.")

Indeed, the history of firearms goes back even further than that -- to the 1300s, more than four centuries before the Second Amendment was written.

The first hint that this may be bogus appears elsewhere on therightists.com website. On the sites "About Us" page, a grammatically challenged warning explains that therightists.com "is independent News platform That allow People and independent Journalist to bring the news directly to the readers. Readers come to us as a source of independent news that not effected from the big channels. This is HYBRID site of news and satire. part of our stories already happens, part, not yet. NOT all of our stories are true!"

Of course, this warning isnt noted on the actual page the Carlson story appears on.

We also couldnt find any credible news source reporting Carlsons words as cited in therightists.com article.

Finally, we checked with Carlsons office. In a statement, her office confirmed that the article was "total B.S."

Bottom line: Carlson did not say, "The 2nd Amendment Was Written Before Guns Were Invented." The accusation that she did rates as Pants on Fire.

Share the Facts

2017-07-24 19:53:16 UTC

1

1

7

Pants on Fire

Say Gretchen Carlson said, "The 2nd Amendment Was Written Before Guns Were Invented."

various websites

Thursday, June 15, 2017

2017-06-15

More:
No, Gretchen Carlson didn't say 2nd Amendment written before guns invented - PolitiFact (blog)

When I started advocating for concealed carry on campus, I was not a gun enthusiast or a member of any Second Amendment organizations. I had only recently been taught to shoot by a concerned local firearms instructor who had heard about a scare I had with a cyberstalker.

But from the minute I put my hands around a Ruger LC9 pistol, the gun I regularly carry with me now, I felt more in control. I felt empowered to be holding a tool that could protect me physically, and I was determined to learn how to use it responsibly. It was a relief to know that I could shoot if I had to, even though I would never use my gun unless it was a last means of self-defense. I got my concealed carry license a year ago.

In addition to Texas, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah and Wisconsin all now allow students with concealed carry permits to carry guns inside the buildings of college campuses. I have learned that there are a lot of misconceptions about these bills. In Texas, only concealed handgun license holders who are 21 years old or older can carry firearms on campus. The rule applies only to public schools, and those schools can also set aside gun-free zones in whatever locations they choose. Anyone who brings a gun on campus must be trained by an instructor certified by the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Still, I regularly encounter liberals who fear irresponsible gun use and think that college kids (even if they are 21) cant be trusted with firearms. I understand that fear is a powerful motivator on both sides of this issue. But I fiercely resent being told that I cant protect myself according to my rights as an American.

The Justice Department estimates that one in five women are assaulted during college. This number does not surprise me, although plenty of my fellow conservatives take issue with it. I have met so many women through my gun advocacy who felt helpless in the face of sexual assault before they carried a weapon they felt that no one would listen to them, that they didnt have any options. It is a huge failing of the conservative movement not to take this seriously. Even if the one out of five statistic is imprecise, isnt one assaulted woman bad enough?

Female gun ownership isnt a matter of political affiliation. Ive met women across the political spectrum who own guns for self-defense or for shooting recreationally. In particular, black women have become a lot more interested in gun ownership and shooting classes.

The rights and values of gun-owning women arent being addressed by either political party. While conservatives arent paying enough attention to sexual assault, liberals are actively hurting womens access to self-defense. Many liberals including many female professors my organization approached as potential sponsors for Empowered dont support a womans right to choose when it comes to her own self-defense. They cant get behind a vision of female empowerment that doesnt match their own.

Contrary to popular belief, there is a place for young, pro-Second Amendment women in modern feminism. And there is a place for them on college campuses.

Originally posted here:
Why I Bring My Gun to School - New York Times

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (KNWA) - 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.

Read more from the original source:
Medical Marijuana Means Losing Your Second Amendment Right - KARK