Mediaboss Marketing

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Washington, D.C.s ban on handgun possession unconstitutionally infringed on Second Amendment rights. Yet a District law prohibiting with few exceptions ammunition in residents homes lingers on the books.

What good is the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense if you cannot have ammunition? How can residents look to the law to understand what conduct is and is not illegal? Should they follow the statutes? The court? Get confused and forgo their rights?

In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that if a statute is in opposition to the Constitution, the Constitution must govern.

Following that principle, the criminal code reform commission established by the City Council has reviewed the districts criminal laws and identified two statutes Unlawful Possession of Ammunition (D.C. Code 7-2506.01) and Alteration of Identifying Marks of Weapons (D.C. Code 22-4512) as being unconstitutional.

The commissions findings rest on two cases in D.C. courts: Herrington v. United States and Reid v. United States.

In Herrington, the trial court had ruled that all the government needs to prove to obtain [an unlawful possession of ammunition] conviction are that the defendant possessed ammunition, and that he did so knowingly and intentionally. The D.C. Court of Appeals disagreed, writing, a flat ban on the possession of handgun ammunition in the home is not just incompatible with the Second Amendment, but clearly so.

Yet it ruled that the government may convict a defendant of unlawful possession of ammunition if it also proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he had not lawfully registered a firearm of the same gauge or caliber as the ammunition he possesses.

The commissions report identifies the statute as unconstitutional but advises lawmakers to cure that by amending the law to incorporate the courts ruling.

The second offense makes it a crime to alter or obliterate a firearms serial number. The commissions report observes that the law also permits a jury to infer that a person who possesses a weapon with obliterated markings is the same person who did, in fact, obliterate those markings.

In Reid, the D.C. Court of Appeals recognized that individuals might unknowingly acquire weapons with previously obliterated markings, and that, therefore, the presumption of guilt in the statute is fundamentally unfair and violates due process.

Thirty-four years later, commissioners are just now advising lawmakers to bring the law up to date with the U.S. Constitution.

The commissioners give three reasons why lawmakers should no longer delay updating D.C. firearms laws:

1) to ensure respect for the peoples constitutional rights;

2) to clarify to the general public what precisely constitutes an offense; and

3) to guide practitioners in the future.

For the same reasons, other states should review their criminal codes to ensure that Second Amendment rights, and other constitutional provisions, are protected.

As the Supreme Court stated in McBoyle v. United States in 1931, and had recognized long before that, fair warning should be given to the world in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed. To make the warning fair, so far as possible the line should be clear.

In Heller, the Court wrote that the Second Amendment bears no secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation. In McDonald v. Chicago, the Court held that the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applies to the states.

The D.C. Criminal Code Reform Commission represents a step in the right direction. It has provided a straightforward methodology for reviewing criminal laws in the interest of protecting constitutional rights. It is an approach that all cities and states should consider taking.

John-Michael Seibler is a legal fellow in The Heritage Foundations Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies.

More:
Second Amendment violations targeted by criminal code experts - Washington Times

The issue revolved aroundBinderup v. the U.S. Attorney General, a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) on behalf ofDaniel Binderup. He pleaded guilty in 1996 to a misdemeanor charge related to a consensual relationship he had with a 17-year-old female employee, receiving three years probation and a $300 fine.Since thecrime could have resulted in jail timeof over one yeartriggering a federal gun law blocks firearms possessionBinderup sought protection of his Second Amendment rights.

The Third Circuit handed down an en banc ruling in Binderups favor and Obamas Department of Justice responded by seeking a Supreme Court review. The result of that review is that the Third Circuit decision stands.

Following SCOTUS announcement, SAF sent a press release to Breitbart News, saying:

The Third Circuit Courts favorableruling combined Binderups case withanother SAF case involvinga man named Julio Suarez. Hewas stopped in 1990 on suspicion of driving while intoxicated.At the time he was carrying a handgun and spare ammunition without a permit.He pleaded guilty in Maryland state court to the charge and received a 180-day suspended sentence and $500 fine. Asa result, he also lost his gun rights because the crime could have resulted in jail timeof more than one year. Neither man was ever incarcerated.

The pro-Second Amendment results ofBinderup v. the U.S. Attorney Generalwere accompanied by news that SCOTUS declined to hearPeruta v. California; a case revolving around Californias good cause requirement for concealed carry license acquisition. On January 12, 2017, Breitbart News reported SCOTUS was petitioned to review Perutain hopes of securing a ruling as to whether the Second Amendment entitles ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in some manner, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.

For now, the Second Amendment community is cheering the ruling inBinderup but remains pensive overPeruta.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host of Bullets 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.

Read the original:
SCOTUS Lets Ruling Stand Protecting Second Amendment Rights Following Non-Serious Misdemeanors - Breitbart News

A Boston-area professor said last week a middle ground exists between protecting the Second Amendment and methods of reducing gun-related violence.

In Broadening the Perspective on Gun Violence: An Examination of the Firearms Industry, 19902015, Boston University School of Public Health professor Dr. Michael Siegel said he wanted to frame gun research in a different context.

Research on firearm violence tends to focus on two elements the host (i.e., victims of firearm violence) and the environment (i.e., gun policies), he said in the articles introduction, published Thursday. But little attention has been paid to the agent (the gun and ammunition) or the vector (firearm manufacturers, dealers, and the industry lobby).

According to federal data, firearms manufacturing in America tripled between 2000 and 2013 the last year Seigel studied.

In that year alone, manufacturers produced 4.4 million pistols, 4 million rifles, 1.2 million shotguns, 725,000 revolvers and 495,000 miscellaneous firearms, according to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Firearms manufacturing dipped 16 percent the following year to just over 9million produced.

[Manufacturers] have reinvented guns not as a recreational sport or tool but as a symbol of freedom and security, Siegel told ABC News Thursday.

Siegel said the increased manufacturing of high-caliber pistols, especially, points to a consumers growing interest in self-defense and a similar need for a new perspective on gun-related violence as a public health issue, not a criminal justice one.

Ultimately, a better understanding of the products on the market may have implications for improving firearms as consumer products, such as fostering changes in design to increase safety or changes in corporate practices to better protect consumers, as has been done for tobacco products, the report concludes.

Siegel said the study, published last week in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine, doesnt mean to imply gun owners should lose their right to bear arms, but rather society must create an effective way to weed out those more prone to violent acts.

They are not the enemy in public health, he said. There are ways to reduce gun violence while valuing gun owners values. It has been painted too long as mutually exclusive.

Larry Keane, general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, reiterated the organizations long-standing opposition to viewing gun-related violence through a public health lens.

Guns are not a disease, he told ABC News. There is no vaccine or health intervention for the criminal misuse of firearms.

Go here to read the rest:
Researcher suggests gun related violence prevention, Second Amendment 'not mutually exclusive' - Guns.com

Justice Clarence Thomas / Getty Images

BY: Stephen Gutowski June 26, 2017 3:15 pm

The Supreme Court denied the appeal of a California gun-carry case on Monday, leaving a lower court decision upholding the state's restrictive gun-carry law in place.

Peruta v. California dealt with a dispute over whether or not California's gun-carry laws are constitutional. In California, as in a handful of other deep-blue states, open carry of a gun in public is generally prohibited while concealed carry is allowed but only through a strict permitting process. The system governing the issuance of a concealed-carry permit, commonly called a "may issue" system, leaves the final decision on whether or not an otherwise-qualified citizen can obtain a permit up to a government official. Even if a citizen were able to pass the background check required under California's concealed-carry law and obtain the required training, he could still be denied a permit if the government official in charge of issuing them believes he doesn't have a "good cause" for wanting one. A generic desire to carry a gun for self-defense purposes is generally not considered a "good cause" under California's law.

A number of California residents who would otherwise qualify for a concealed-carry permit but were denied under the "good cause" clause of the law sued the state, claiming their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was being infringed upon. The National Rifle Association (NRA) and other gun-rights organizations supported the suit.

A panel of Ninth Circuit judges first held in favor of the plaintiffs and found the "good cause" clause in combination with other parts of the law to be unconstitutional. On appeal, however, the full Ninth Circuit reversed the decision and sided with California by ruling the Second Amendment does not specifically protect the concealed carry of guns.

In a dissent from Monday's Supreme Court decision not to hear the case, Justice Clarence Thomas and new Justice Neil Gorsuch called the Ninth Circuit's decision "indefensible" and accused the Supreme Court of treating the Second Amendment as a "disfavored right"Thomas wrote the strongly worded dissent and Gorsuch joined him. The orders issued on Monday are among the first that Gorsuch has participated in.

The two took special exception to the Ninth Circuit's decision to focus only on whether concealed carry of a gun was constitutionally protected and not the broader question of whether California's effective ban on all forms of gun carry is constitutional.

"We should have granted certiorari in this case," Thomas wrote in the dissent. "The approach taken by the en banc court is indefensible, and the petition raises important questions that this Court should address. The en banc court's decision to limit its review to whether the Second Amendment protects the right to concealed carryas opposed to the more general right to public carrywas untenable. Most fundamentally, it was not justified by the terms of the complaint, which called into question the State's regulatory scheme as a whole."

Thomas went on to say the Second Amendment likely does protect some form of public gun carry. "I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen," he said.

The dissent went beyond the scope of the Peruta case, though, and complained that the Supreme Court has been reluctant to take any Second Amendment cases in recent years.

"The Court's decision to deny certiorari in this case reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right," Thomas said in the dissent. "The Court has not heard argument in a Second Amendment case in over seven yearssince March 2, 2010, in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742. Since that time, we have heard argument in, for example, roughly 35 cases where the question presented turned on the meaning of the First Amendment and 25 cases that turned on the meaning of the Fourth Amendment."

Thomas then suggested members of the Supreme Court, surrounded by armed security at almost every waking moment, may think Second Amendment rights are outdated and chastised that idea.

"For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous," he said. "But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it."

The NRA released a statement condemning the Supreme Court's decision not to hear Peruta v. Califonia.

"We are disappointed in the Court's rejection of the appeal in Peruta v. California, which now leaves millions of law-abiding Californians with no ability to bear arms outside the home," Chris Cox, the head of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement. "As Justices Thomas and Gorsuch correctly stated, too many courts have been treating the Second Amendment as a second-class right. That should not be allowed to stand."

The gun-rights group said it would continue the legal battle for gun carry.

"As the Supreme Court stated in its landmark decision in Heller v. District of Columbia, the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense," Cox said. "The framers of our Constitution did not intend to limit that right to the home. We look forward to a future Court affirming that the right to keep and bear arms is as much a part of our Constitution as the other enumerated rights that it protects. We will not stop fighting until a future Court affirms this fundamental right."

See the rest here:
Supreme Court Denies Appeal in California Gun-Carry Case - Washington Free Beacon

The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to review a California law restricting concealed carry permits.

After postponing the order multiple times, the nations highest court rejected a review of Peruta v. California. In the case, gun rights activists argued that a good cause requirement on concealed carry permits is too restrictive.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch said the court should have reviewed the appellate ruling. Thomas said the decision not to hear the case "reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right."

What is this case about?

At issue in this case is concealed carry and whether a county can define good cause to carry a weapon outside of ones home as strictly as some California counties specifically San Diego do.

Edward Peruta and other gun owners reportedly attempted to obtain concealed carry permits in San Diego County, Calif. However, the sheriffs department which handles permit requests requires a specific good cause to obtain the permits, Fox News previously reported.

That good cause must be more specific than just a general concern for wellbeing; a person must list a precise fear, such as domestic violence or carrying a large amount of money.

What were other rulings?

A three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in 2014 that the policy stood in violation of the right to self-defense.

However, 11 judges in the same circuit later ruled 7-4 in a new hearing that the restrictions were permissible.

Whats next for this case?

The nations highest court hasnt always been so willing to take up Second Amendment cases, Law Newz reported earlier this month. And this particular case has been rescheduled multiple times.

The high court decided in 2008 that the Constitution guarantees the right to a gun, at least for self-defense at home.

But the justices have refused repeated pleas to spell out the extent of gun rights in the United States, allowing permit restrictions and assault weapons bans to remain in effect in some cities and states.

More than 40 states already broadly allow gun owners to be armed in public.

With the Supreme Court declining to review the case, the California law will remain in place.

The high court also turned away a second case involving guns and the federal law that bars people convicted of crimes from owning guns.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read the rest here:
US Supreme Court declines to take up 2nd Amendment case: A look at the California law - Fox News