Mediaboss Marketing

Audio clip: Listen to audio clip.

FOX's Eben Brown has this week's 'FOX Bullet Points':

I'm Eben Brown.

Second Amendment advocates are a bit upset the U.S. Supreme Court didn't take up the case of a California man suing over a denial of a concealed carry permit. In Peruta v. California, the sheriff in San Diego says he can refuse to issue concealed carry permits if the applicant doesn't show a real need for one. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch published a dissent to the court's rejection, calling it 'distressing.'

Meanwhile, in Kansas, it'll be legal to carry without a permit on college campus' starting this Saturday.

You know PayPal, and Square, and Stripe? All three are used more and more by retailers to complete electronic payments. But the three outfits, which are not banks, are now the target of a class action lawsuit. Firearms retailer Blar Gladwin of California, who has his federal firearms license, say the three agencies deny him their services because he sells guns. Gladwin claims it's a civil rights violation.

Those are your Bullet Points! I'm Eben Brown, FOX News!

Go here to see the original:
Supreme Court Justices Call Second Amendment Case 'Distressing ... - FOX News Radio (blog)

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. -- Many cherish their right to keep and bear arms.

But, Second Amendment rights are not without controversy.

The Second Amendment ruffles lots of political feathers.

Here's what the amendment says:

"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."

Having just fought off the strongest military power in the world to gain independence, the founders were acutely aware that the ability of the people to access arms to keep government in check was vital.

But those today who argue for increased restrictions on gun ownership point to the amendment's use of the term "militia," and say that this refers to the modern day National Guard, not all citizens.

Gun proponents push back by saying that militias at the time of the Constitution's ratification included all able-bodied males over the age of 16, who could be pressed into defense of their land and rights.

For years, the Supreme Court refused to rule that the Second Amendment was incorporated-meaning that it applied to all the states. This is why states have historically had a patchwork of different rules for gun ownership and use.

But the Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v. The City of Chicago in 2010 that the Second Amendment was incorporated, and gun rights advocates were delighted since this seemed to mean that gun restrictions would be ruled unconstitutional.

But this ruling did little to quell the Second Amendment controversy since the amendment itself contains the term "well regulated." Regulation implies some set of rules or standards, and even if one believes that the people are the militia in this amendment - not the National Guard- it is hard to imagine that the government doesn't have an interest in regulating arms to some extent. Even the term "arms" raises questions. Does this mean simply guns, or can we add bazookas and drones to the list? After all, people can own both.

Even the court's most conservative justice of the 20th century, Antonin Scalia, seemed to agree with some regulations of arms, at least broadly defined. This is an issue that will likely never be settled, but it's important to know the constitutional basis for all the controversy.

(Brian Calfano)

Original post:
Analysis: Second Amendment Rights Come with Controversy - Story - OzarksFirst.com

Fabrizio Vianello, Second Amendment supporter and owner at Eltenda Channel on Youtube, photographed in Illinois with his Bushmaster AR-15 rifle and his dog Peanut. (Photo: Ben Philippi)

Originally from Italy, Fabrizio Vianello fell in love with an American girl and immigrated to America. Although still fond of his homeland, Fabrizio loves his new country for its infinite possibilities, freedom, and especially, the right to keep and bear arms.

Im the new kid in town.

I moved to America from Europe a few years ago, and since then I have learned so much about what it means to be an American and the importance of the Bill of Rights. People like me have come from all over the world looking for the kind of freedom that America was known for.

The Second Amendment, like all the others, is one of the basic rights that every American in every state should defend. I am surprised at the disinformation campaign of the media and the propaganda against firearms and I hope the people of this great country never forget the importance of their right to bear arms.

Godspeed!

Read more perspectives on Americas gun culture in Ben Philippis book We The People.

Go here to see the original:
Dispatches from gun country: This Italian immigrant loves the Second Amendment - Guns.com

The court has seldom addressed the scope of Second Amendment rights. In 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep guns at home for self-defense.

Since then, the court has said little about what other laws may violate the Second Amendment. In the lower courts, few challenges to gun control laws since the Heller decision have succeeded.

But legal experts say it is only a matter of time before the court confronts the question of whether and how the Second Amendment applies outside the home.

The case, Peruta v. California, No. 16-894, concerned a state law that essentially bans carrying guns openly in public and allows carrying concealed weapons only if applicants can demonstrate good cause. The challengers, several individuals and gun-rights groups, sued San Diego and Yolo Counties, saying that officials there interpreted good cause so narrowly as to make it impossible to carry guns in public for self-defense.

San Diego, for instance, defined good cause to require proof that the applicant was in harms way, adding that simply fearing for ones personal safety alone is not considered good cause.

In a 7-to-4 ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, said there was no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed weapon.

Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment whatever the scope of that protection may be simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public, Judge William A. Fletcher wrote for the majority.

The court did not decide whether the Second Amendment allows leeway for states to ban carrying guns in public.

There may or may not be a Second Amendment right for a member of the general public to carry a firearm openly in public, Judge Fletcher wrote. The Supreme Court has not answered that question, and we do not answer it here.

The Supreme Court also turned down a second case on gun rights, this one about the constitutionality of a law prohibiting people convicted of serious crimes from owning guns. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor noted that they would have granted review, but they gave no reasons.

The case concerned a federal law that prohibits possessing a gun after a conviction of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. The law has an exception for any state offense classified by the laws of the state as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.

In separate cases, two Pennsylvania men said the law was unconstitutional as applied to them.

They were convicted of minor and nonviolent crimes decades ago, they said, and received no jail time. Though the laws under which they were convicted allowed for the theoretical possibility of sentences longer than two years, they argued, they should not have been stripped of a constitutional right for that reason.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, ruled in their favor.

In urging the Supreme Court to hear the case, Sessions v. Binderup, No. 16-847, the Justice Department said the appeals court had opened the courthouse doors to an untold number of future challenges by other individuals based on their own particular offenses, histories and personal circumstances.

The decision below, the governments brief said, threatens public safety and poses serious problems of judicial administration because it requires judges to make ad hoc assessments of the risks of allowing convicted felons to possess firearms a high-stakes task that Congress has already determined cannot be performed with sufficient reliability, and one for which the judiciary is particularly ill suited.

Follow Adam Liptak on Twitter @adamliptak.

Get politics and Washington news updates via Facebook, Twitter and in the Morning Briefing newsletter.

A version of this article appears in print on June 27, 2017, on Page A13 of the New York edition with the headline: Supreme Court Rejects Another Case on Guns.

View original post here:
Supreme Court Turns Down Case on Carrying Guns in Public - New York Times

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.

The rest is here:
Second Amendment Violations Targeted by Criminal Code Experts - Heritage.org