Mediaboss Marketing

Taking action to protect Second Amendment rights from unwarranted executive intrusion, Alabama Senator Luther Strangeon Wednesday introduced the Protecting the Second Amendment Act.

The bill would amend the Gun Control Act to nullify generalized, routine, or ongoing reporting requirement on lawful gun owners based on geographic location or sales records of multiple long guns, and prohibit future executive action against them.

The Obama administration demonstrated time and again a disturbing willingness to bypass the separation of powers and disregard Congress as a Constitutional watchdog, explainedStrange. Had the restrictions faced by lawful gun dealers in border states been applied to Alabama, many sportsmen, myself included, would have a difficult time practicing our hobby, and exercising our Constitutional rights. With this bill, I am proud to stand up against existing and future threats to the rights of lawful gun owners, and restore respect for the rule of law.

Under an Obama-era executive order claiming to target the flow of firearms to Mexican drug cartels, gun owners and dealers in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas were subjected to additional reporting requirements on firearms above .22 caliber.

The Protecting the Second Amendment Act has already received support from originalSenate cosponsors, Texas-RepublicansJohn Cornynand Ted Cruz, and is being praised by the National Rifle Association as an important step in rolling back the full extent of Obama administrationsactions against guns.

On behalf of the NRAs five million members, we would like to thank Senator Strange for introducing this important bill that would roll back the Obama administrations defacto gun registration scheme, said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox. Senator Strange continues to be a champion for our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in the U.S. Senate.

For eight long years the Second Amendment was constantly under threat by an Administration hostile to the fundamental right of Americans to defend themselves, addedCornyn. This bill will help roll back unilateral regulations from the last Administration targeting law-abiding gun owners, and Im proud to join Senator Strange in this fight.

Link:
Luther Strange introduces bill to close Obama-era 2nd Amendment loophole - Alabama Today

By Jacob Sullum Creators Syndicate

Philando Castile did what you are supposed to do if you have a concealed-carry permit and get pulled over by police: He let the officer know he had a gun.

Had Castile been less forthcoming, he would still be alive.

Last Friday, a Minnesota jury acquitted the cop who killed Castile of second-degree manslaughter, demonstrating once again how hard it is to hold police accountable when they use unnecessary force. The verdict also sends a chilling message to gun owners, since Castile is dead because he exercised his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Jeronimo Yanez, an officer employed by the St. Anthony, Minnesota, police department, stopped Castile around 9 p.m. on July 6 in Falcon Heights, a suburb of Minneapolis and St. Paul. The official reason was a nonfunctioning brake light.

The actual reason, according to Yanez, was that Castile resembled a suspect in a convenience store robbery that had happened four days before in the same neighborhood. The full extent of the resemblance was that Castile, like the suspect, was black, wore glasses and dreadlocks, and had a "wide-set nose."

Castile, a 32-year-old cafeteria manager, had nothing to do with the robbery. But in Yanez's mind, Castile posed a threat.

The traffic stop began politely but turned deadly within a minute. Audio and video of the encounter show that Yanez asked for Castile's proof of insurance and driver's license.

After Castile handed over his insurance card, he calmly informed Yanez, "Sir, I have to tell you that I do have a firearm on me." Yanez interrupted him, saying, "OK, don't reach for it, then."

Castile and his girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, who was sitting in the front passenger seat, repeatedly assured the officer that Castile was not reaching for the weapon. But by now Yanez was in full panic mode.

"Don't pull it out!" he screamed, immediately drawing his weapon and firing seven rounds into the car, heedless of Reynolds and her 4-year-old daughter, who was in the backseat. Mortally wounded, Castile moaned and said, "I wasn't reaching for it."

Reynolds, who drew nationwide attention to the shooting by reporting it via Facebook Live immediately afterward, has consistently said Castile was reaching for his wallet to retrieve his driver's license, per Yanez's instructions. Yanez initially said he thought Castile was reaching for his gun; later he claimed to have seen Castile pulling out the pistol, which was found inside a front pocket on the right side of the dead man's shorts.

Yanez clearly acted out of fear. The question is whether that fear was reasonable in the circumstances and whether deadly force was the only way to address it.

Jeffrey Noble, an expert on police procedure, testified that Yanez's actions were "objectively unreasonable." The officer had "absolutely no reason" to view Castile as a robbery suspect, Noble said, and could have mitigated the threat he perceived by telling Castile to put his hands on the dashboard or stepping back from the car window.

If Castile planned to shoot Yanez, why would he announce that he had a firearm? That disclosure was obviously aimed at avoiding trouble but had the opposite effect because Yanez was not thinking clearly.

Officers like Yanez, who is leaving his department under a "voluntary separation agreement," pose a clear and present danger to law-abiding gun owners. Yet the National Rifle Association has been curiously reticent about the case.

The day after the shooting, the NRA said "the reports from Minnesota are troubling and must be thoroughly investigated." It promised "the NRA will have more to say once all the facts are known."

The reports have been investigated, and the facts are known. Yet the NRA has not added anything to the bland, noncommittal statement it made a year ago. You'd think "the nation's largest and oldest civil rights organization" would have more to say about an innocent man who was killed for exercising his Second Amendment rights.

Jacob Sullum (jsullum@reason.com) is a senior editor at Reason magazine. He writes for Creators Syndicate.

Follow this link:
Sullum: The NRA shuns a Second Amendment martyr - The Ledger

Over the years, Ive developed an insufferable tic that I insist on fobbing off as a bad joke. Upon encountering someone going through seriously bad timescancer diagnosis, dead dog, divorce, child gone crazyI invariably blurt out, Well other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play? In all these years, this has yet to inject a lick of levity. The punchline does not derive from the hilariously improbable notion that Mary Todd Lincolnafflicted with migraines, debilitating depression, racking physical pains, and what was likely a bipolar conditionmight actually have enjoyed anything. The play in question was Our American Cousin, which Mary Todd and her husband, Abraham Lincoln, were watching at Fords Theatre in Washington, D.C., when actor John Wilkes Booth shot and killed the president. Booth waited for the line that always got the loudest laughswhen a lovably loutish American proto-bro type calls a sniffy British dowager a sockdologizing old man-trapbefore aiming at Lincolns head and pulling the trigger. Bootha supporter of the Southern causedid notmiss.

Had Booth had at his disposal a sound suppressor for his pistol at the time, he would not have had to wait for the laughter. And Lincolns widow would not have had to ponder what a sockdologizing old man-trap was. More misogyny hiding behind humor, perhaps? If Booth had a silencer, he no doubt could have escaped. More than 150 years after the fact, another son of the SouthRepublican Congressmember Jeff Duncan from South Carolinahas introduced a bill that would have vastly improved Booths odds. Duncan is the proud author of the Hearing Protection Act, which would expedite and accelerate the sale of gun suppressorsalso known as silencersby exempting them from the additional layer of time-consuming background checks required by the National Firearms Act passed in 1934. According to Duncan, silencers are needed because shooting is notoriously hard on the hearing of those who shoot a lot. He also cites a study showing the number of violent crimes committed by people wielding silenced firearms can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Im sure theyre right about that. Theyre also right when they point outas they like to dothat more Americans are killed with hammers than by rifles. Its also beside thepoint.

Two weeks ago in Judge Brian Hills courtroom, I saw the real point during the triple-homicide trial of a man accused of killing noted Chinese herbalist Dr. Henry Han; his wife, Jennie Yu; and their 5-year-old child, Emily. Eight muffled bullets had been shot into the head of Emily and three each into the heads of her parents. Gruesome forensic photosshowing all 14 bullet entry woundswere splashed bigger than life up on the courtroom wall. This was one of those rare instances in which a silencer had, in fact, been used. The point was to help the killer get away withmurder.

Heres my point: Wearing earplugs and earmuffs significantly reduces hearing damage inflicted by shooting. It does not, however, help killers get away withmurder.

As usual, theres no shortage of grim ironies surrounding this legislation, which was supposed to have had its first committee hearing this past week. From the outset, the timing was awkward, coming on the first-year anniversary of the one-way shootout at the Orlando gay nightclub Pulse, which left 49 dead and 58 seriously wounded. The hearing was only postponed after a rage-addled Bernie Sanders supporter, James T. Hodgkinson, lit up a baseball field in Arlington, Virginia, last weekshooting rapid fire at members of the Republican congressional baseball team practicing for the big game the following night against their Democratic rivals. Just before the 66-year-old Hodgkinson began his rampage, he met none other than South Carolina Congressmember Duncan, author of the Hearing Protection Act, walking off the field. As Duncan and the shooter passed each other, Hodgkinson asked him, Excuse me, sir, whos practicing today? Democrats or Republicans? As Duncan recounted, I said, This is a Republican team, and he said, K, thanks. By the time Hodgkinson was done spraying the field, five people had been seriously wounded, including House Majority Whip SteveScalise.

The shooting has not shaken Duncans belief in the silencer bill. The gunman, Duncan observed blandly, did not use a silencer. Duncan added that Illinois, where Hodkinson is from, has some of the toughest gun control laws in the nation, yet even they failed to stop the allegedshooter.

Should the Hearing Protection Act be approved, it would repeal the outright silencer bans independently enacted by 11 states, most notably California and New York. So much for Southern conservatives passionate belief in states rights. It turns out there are roughly 1.3 million legally registered silencer owners in the United States. Should Duncans bill pass, all records of who own silencers will bedestroyed.

The Hearing Protection Act is part of a broader legislative package known euphoniously as the SHARE Actwhich stands for Sportsmens Heritage and Recreational Enhancement. Duncan is also the author of that. Included in SHARE are provisions to revoke bans on the sale of armor-piercing bullets. SHARE abolishes existing bans on the importation of elephant and polar bear body parts as big-game hunting trophies. It also contains unprecedented new protections for transporting guns and ammo across state lines. Should any law enforcement officer seek to enforce local prohibitions against certain guns or ammo being shipped through their jurisdiction, the officer could be personally sued for so doing. Thats radicalstuff.

The good news? No new date has yet been set for a hearing on the silencerbill.

So other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

Visit link:
Triple Homicide Collides with Second Amendment - Santa Barbara Independent

Please enable Javascript to watch this video

CARMEL, Ind. - Organizations calling for stricter gun laws and Second Amendment supporters united Wednesday for National Ask Day.

The day is put on by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Brady Organization and encourages parents to ask the caretakers of their children's friends if guns are stored safely in the home.

It may sound intrusive, but I think its totally appropriate to say, are there guns in the home? Are those guns locked up? Are they secure?'" gun advocate and founder of The Law Office of Guy A. Relford, Guy Relford, said. "And thats not an anti-gun message.Im the most ardent second amendment supporter there is, but I wouldnt hesitate to ask those questions. Just because I store my guns responsibly that doesnt mean everyone does, and if anyone is offended by that I dont think they are taking the safety of the child as their first priority.

Relford has taught gun safety for more than 20 years to children and adults. He said gun safety is a sometimes a difficult conversation for parents to have with their children, but it shouldn't be.

"I dont put gun safety in any different category than any other kind of safety whether youre talking about swimming pool safety or traffic safety," Relford said. "Your kids won't be under your belt all the time so those kids need to know how to react if they come across a gun."

The Pew Research Center said about a third of homes in America that have kids in them also have gun and a study recently published in the journal, "Pediatrics," found 1,300 children die from a gun-related injury each year.

See the article here:
National Ask Day unites Second Amendment supporters and groups calling for stricter gun laws - WTTV CBS4Indy

Philando Castile did what you are supposed to do if you have a concealed-carry permit and get pulled over by police: He let the officer know he had a gun. Had Castile been less forthcoming, he would still be alive.

Last Friday, a Minnesota jury acquitted the cop who killed Castile of second-degree manslaughter, demonstrating once again how hard it is to hold police accountable when they use unnecessary force. The verdict also sends a chilling message to gun owners, since Castile is dead because he exercised his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

OPINION

Jeronimo Yanez, an officer employed by the St. Anthony, Minnesota, police department, stopped Castile around 9 p.m. on July 6 in Falcon Heights, a suburb of Minneapolis and St. Paul. The official reason was a nonfunctioning brake light.

The actual reason, according to Yanez, was that Castile resembled a suspect in a convenience store robbery that had happened four days before in the same neighborhood. The full extent of the resemblance was that Castile, like the suspect, was black, wore glasses and dreadlocks, and had a wide-set nose.

Castile, a 32-year-old cafeteria manager, had nothing to do with the robbery. But in Yanezs mind, Castile posed a threat.

The traffic stop began politely but turned deadly within a minute. Audio and video of the encounter show that Yanez asked for Castiles proof of insurance and drivers license.

After Castile handed over his insurance card, he calmly informed Yanez, Sir, I have to tell you that I do have a firearm on me. Yanez interrupted him, saying, OK, dont reach for it, then.

Castile and his girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, who was sitting in the front passenger seat, repeatedly assured the officer that Castile was not reaching for the weapon. But by now Yanez was in full panic mode.

Dont pull it out! he screamed, immediately drawing his weapon and firing seven rounds into the car, heedless of Reynolds and her 4-year-old daughter, who was in the backseat. Mortally wounded, Castile moaned and said, I wasnt reaching for it.

Reynolds, who drew nationwide attention to the shooting by reporting it via Facebook Live immediately afterward, has consistently said Castile was reaching for his wallet to retrieve his drivers license, per Yanezs instructions. Yanez initially said he thought Castile was reaching for his gun; later he claimed to have seen Castile pulling out the pistol, which was found inside a front pocket on the right side of the dead mans shorts.

Yanez clearly acted out of fear. The question is whether that fear was reasonable in the circumstances and whether deadly force was the only way to address it.

Jeffrey Noble, an expert on police procedure, testified that Yanezs actions were objectively unreasonable. The officer had absolutely no reason to view Castile as a robbery suspect, Noble said, and could have mitigated the threat he perceived by telling Castile to put his hands on the dashboard or stepping back from the car window.

If Castile planned to shoot Yanez, why would he announce that he had a firearm? That disclosure was obviously aimed at avoiding trouble but had the opposite effect because Yanez was not thinking clearly.

Officers like Yanez, who is leaving his department under a voluntary separation agreement, pose a clear and present danger to law-abiding gun owners. Yet the National Rifle Association (NRA) has been curiously reticent about the case.

The day after the shooting, the NRA said the reports from Minnesota are troubling and must be thoroughly investigated. It promised the NRA will have more to say once all the facts are known.

The reports have been investigated, and the facts are known. Yet the NRA has not added anything to the bland, noncommittal statement it made a year ago. Youd think the nations largest and oldest civil rights organization would have more to say about an innocent man who was killed for exercising his Second Amendment rights.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine.

Creators Syndicate

Original post:
The NRA shuns a Second Amendment martyr - Chicago Sun-Times