Mediaboss Marketing

Photo: Cathy Zuraw / Hearst Connecticut Media

Second amendment group opposes lawsuit in Sandy Hook shooting

The Connecticut Citizens Defense League has filed a brief opposing a lawsuit that would hold manufacturers and sellers of the gun used in the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting liable for the crime.

The suit filed by the families of 10 victims argues that makers and distributors of the AR-15-style rifle used in the shooting recklessly marketed it to civilians, ignoring the risks that it would be misused. The suit was thrown out by a lower court, and the families have appealed to have it reinstated.

CCDLs brief against the reinstatement argues that the firearm is 25 percent as powerful as a regular hunting rifle, because it uses lightweight ammunition. It also states that crime statistics show that ordinary handguns are more than 15 times more likely to be used by mass shooters than the model of firearm chosen by Adam Lanza.

If the defendants are held liable in this case, then, it will set a precedent that would expose businesses to legal liability each time they sell virtually any type of firearm in Connecticut, the CCDL news release states.

View original post here:
Second amendment group opposes lawsuit in Sandy Hook shooting - Danbury News Times

wbur Commentary A Capitol Hill Police officer stands watch in Alexandria, Va., Wednesday, June 14, 2017, after a shooting involving House Majority Whip Steve Scalise of La., and others, during a Congressional baseball practice. (Cliff Owen/AP)

Like what you read here? Sign up for our twice-weekly newsletter.

James T. Hodgkinson, who died in a shootout with police Wednesday after wounding Congressman Steve Scalise and four others, apparently had a valid gun license. Whether or not he came by his weapons legally, the tragedy is bound to reopen our gun control debate and the assertion by Second Amendment fundamentalists, contrary to the view of most firearms owners, that gun control is unconstitutional.

They're wrong. I have this on good authority from two expert sources the late Justice Antonin Scalia, and the Founders who wrote the Constitution.

Gun-rights advocates may quote the Second Amendment robotically, but ... they apparently skip over its insistence that any militia be well regulated.

Before his death last year, Scalia was the Supreme Courts conservative brain, devoted to interpreting the founding document with what he saw as the intent of its drafters. Those founding fathersfamously quill-penned 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. So it will pop the bubble wrap in extremists minds to hear that in not allowingrestrictions on firearms, theyve been genuflecting to a myth.

Thats because theyve skated over inconvenient words from both the men who wrote the Constitution and Scalia, their medium.

Start with the latter. Gun control advocates cite his words in District of Columbia v. Heller, which at first blush is odd, since that 2008 case saw the high court uphold an individuals right to bear arms without serving in a state militia. Yet Scalia, writing the majority opinion, declared, Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited, adding that it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on legislated conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms, he wrote. Scalia also OKd restrictions in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings and on felons and the mentally ill.

These categories capture the vast majority of gun laws in America, says UCLA constitutional law professor Adam Winkler. In short, theres plenty of room under the Second Amendment for gun control.

Unnerving as those words will be to people who support fewer restrictions, they might suggest Scalia was an apostate from the Founders views. Uh-uh. Gun-rights advocates may quote the Second Amendment robotically, but, Winkler notes, they apparently skip over its insistence that any militia be well regulated.

Early America lived by that modifier, Fordham University historian Saul Cornell says: For instance, starting in the colonial period, states enacted a variety of safe-storage measures to deal with the danger posed by stored gunpowder. A 1786 law went as far as prohibiting the storage of a loaded gun in any building in Boston. Such laws, including early versions of gun registration, Winkler says, were so restrictive that todays NRA leaders would never support them.

Gun advocates will point out that Hodgkinsons rampage was itself stopped by guns, when police killed him-- glossing over the fact, as they gloss over the Second Amendments inconvenient words and history, that no one objects to trained police with guns.

Of course, the Founders permitted any number of things that would make moderns cringe slavery comes to mind so rights advocates are free to argue that the drafters views on guns were wrong. But they can't cloak extremism with phony Second Amendment protections, and anyway, its hard to come up with a defense for such extremism that passes the giggle test, as Scalias writing attests.

Beyond the restrictions permitted by the Heller opinion, judges spanning the ideological spectrum have upheld other gun controls, such as assault weapon bans. Even legal scholars who disagree with these rulings concede there are a lot of them. Its true that in a culture steeped in gun ownership, laws alone will never be enough to end Americas firearms carnage. Other measures that account for the resilience of that culture will be necessary as well.

But as this weeks atrocity recycles our endless gun control debate, its worth remembering a less familiar point. Those who think the Constitution permits unfettered gun possession should read it first.

Follow Cognoscenti on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for our twice-weekly newsletter.

Rich Barlow Cognoscenti contributor Rich Barlow writes for BU Today, Boston University's news website.

More

Originally posted here:
After Congressional Baseball Shooting, We Need To Talk About Gun Control - WBUR

At the center of the gun control debate, few things are as hotly disputed in the United States as the Constitution's Second Amendment.

History of the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment provides U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. Ratified in December 1791, 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.

James Madison originally proposed the Second Amendment shortly after the Constitution was officially ratified as a way to provide more power to state militias, which today are considered the National Guard. It was deemed a compromise between Federalists those who supported the Constitution as it was ratified and the anti-Federalists those who supported states having more power. Having just used guns and other arms to ward off the English, the amendment was originally created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees the inalienable rights of citizens.

Interpretations of the Second Amendment

Since its ratification, Americans have been arguing over the amendment's meaning and interpretation. One side interprets the amendment to mean it provides for collective rights, while the opposing view is that it provides individual rights.

Those who take the collective side think the amendment gives each state the right to maintain and train formal militia units that can provide protection against an oppressive federal government. They argue the "well regulated militia" clause clearly means the right to bear arms should only be given to these organized groups. They believe this allows for only those in the official militia to carry guns legally, and say the federal government cannot abolish state militias.

Those with the opposite viewpoint believe the amendment gives every citizen the right to own guns, free of federal regulations, to protect themselves in the face of danger. The individualists believe the amendment's militia clause was never meant to restrict each citizen's rights to bear arms.

Both interpretations have helped shape the country's ongoing gun control debate. Those supporting an individual's right to own a gun, such as the National Rifle Association, argue that the Second Amendment should give all citizens, not just members of a militia, the right to own a gun. Those supporting stricter gun control, like the Brady Campaign, believe the Second Amendment isn't a blank check for anyone to own a gun. They feel that restrictions on firearms, such as who can have them, under what conditions, where they can be taken, and what types of firearms are available, are necessary.

The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment

While the right to bear arms is regularly debated in the court of public opinion, it is the Supreme Court whose opinion matters most. Yet despite an ongoing public battle over gun ownership rights, until recent years the Supreme Court had said very little on the issue.

The Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C.

One of the first rulings came in 1876 in U.S. v. Cruikshank. The case involved members of the Ku Klux Klan not allowing black citizens the right to standard freedoms, such as the right to assembly and the right to bear arms. As part of the ruling, the court said the right of each individual to bear arms was not granted under the Constitution. Ten years later, the court affirmed the ruling in Presser v. Illinois when it said that the Second Amendment only limited the federal government from prohibiting gun ownership, not the states.

The Supreme Court took up the issue again in 1894 in Miller v. Texas. In this case, Dallas' Franklin Miller sued the state of Texas, arguing that despite state laws saying otherwise, he should have been able to carry a concealed weapon under Second Amendment protection. The court disagreed, saying the Second Amendment does not apply to state laws, like Texas' restrictions on carrying dangerous weapons.

All three of the cases heard before 1900 cemented the court's opinion that the Bill of Rights, and specifically the Second Amendment, does not prohibit states from setting their own rules on gun ownership.

Until recently, the Supreme Court hadn't ruled on the Second Amendment since U.S. v. Miller in 1939. In that case, Jack Miller and Frank Layton were arrested for carrying an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines, which had been prohibited since the National Firearms Act was enacted five years earlier. Miller argued that the National Firearms Act violated their rights under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed, however, saying "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

It would be nearly 70 years before the court took up the issue again, this time in the District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. The case centered on Dick Heller, a licensed special police office in Washington, D.C., who challenged the nation's capital's handgun ban. For the first time, the Supreme Court ruled that despite state laws, individuals who were not part of a state militia did have the right to bear arms. As part of its ruling, the court wrote, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

The court would rule on the issue again two years later as part of McDonald v. City of Chicago, which challenged the city's ban on private handgun ownership. In a similar 5-to-4 ruling, the court affirmed its decision in the Heller case, saying the Second Amendment "applies equally to the federal government and the states."

Despite the recent rulings, the debate on gun control continues. Incidents like those in Aurora, Colo., and Sandy Hook, N.J., only serve as motivation for both sides to have their opinions heard and considered.

Related:

Originally posted here:
The Second Amendment & the Right to Bear Arms

|

Posted: Jun 18, 2017 12:01 AM

All lives matter. As do Second Amendment rights.

Which is why the killing of 32-year-old Philando Castile last July was disturbing, and the acquittal of St. Anthony, Minnesota, police officer Jeronimo Yanez, this past Friday, so troubling.

Castiles girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, who live-streamed the chilling aftermath of the shooting on her cell phone, assumed the traffic stop was for a broken tail-light. But Officer Yanez, four years on the force, stopped Castile believing he might be the perpetrator of a recent robbery. Castile was not; he was merely the same race (black), roughly the same age, and had the same hair-style (dreadlocks).

Of course, many men in the Twin Cities metro area fit those characteristics.

Much about the incident remains unclear and in dispute. What seems indisputable is this: Philando Castile told the Latino officer that he was carrying a gun, for which he had a concealed carry permit. That doesnt sound like an admission someone would make if planning to whip out that pistol and start blasting away.

Also certain is the fact that Officer Yanez fired seven times into the automobile carrying Castile, Reynolds and Reynolds four-year-old daughter. Five bullets struck Castile, two in the heart. One bullet barely missed the toddler strapped into a car seat in the back. Castile later died at a local hospital.

The audio on the cellphone footage, which began after the shots were fired, has Yanez yelling: I told him not to reach for it! I told him to get his hand out.

You told him to get his I.D., sir, his drivers license, Ms. Reynolds responds, almost eerily calm. Please dont tell me, please dont tell me my boyfriend is gone. Please dont tell me hes gone. Please Jesus, no.

Yanez was charged with second-degree manslaughter and reckless discharge of a firearm. The officer testified in court that he fired his weapon after seeing part of the gun emerging from Castiles pocket. Reynolds told jurors that Castile was slowly pulling out his wallet in response to Officer Yanezs request, definitely not his handgun.

The jury was initially deadlocked, ten jurors voting to acquit and two to convict. But the judge urged them to continue deliberating. Though whites outnumbered African Americans on the jury five to one, some jurors told reporters that the two jurors initially favoring conviction were not the two black jurors.

Late in the deliberations, the jury requested to again review several videos introduced into evidence. The two videos the judge allowed them to re-watch were an interview of Diamond Reynolds and the dash-cam recording from the police car. The dash-cam recording has not been released to the public.

Last Friday, the jury unanimously acquitted Officer Yanez of all three charges.

Mistakes happen. Deadly ones, even. One can certainly sympathize with the plight of police fearing for their safety at traffic stops, which they know can turn deadly in an instant. Yet, law enforcement officers cannot go around blowing away innocent people because they are scared.

A young man who worked as a supervisor at a public school cafeteria and had no criminal record is dead. Many others black and white are dead in incidents that suspiciously lack good explanations. There is nothing in our American can-do spirit that accepts fatal errors. Especially repeated ones.

What to do?

Lets outfit police with body cameras. And lets write the rules for those cameras as voters in Ferguson, Missouri, did last April by passing a ballot initiative such that (1) police face repercussions for not having the cameras on, and (2) the footage is made publicly available, so people know there will be accountability and no cover-ups.

Then-President Obamas Justice Department investigated the 2014 shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson and found that Brown was at fault, as the aggressor, not the police officer. Had body cam footage been publicly released the riots that followed may not have erupted. Citizens would have been saved millions in property damage and spared the divide along racial and political lines all across the nation.

In other instances, body cams might help convict the cops.

Still, even with body camera footage available, it seems difficult to gain convictions against police when they clearly err by killing innocent folks. Numerous cases of police shooting unarmed men have been caught on video and yet either not resulted in officers being prosecuted or with officers acquitted of charges.

Like Officer Yanez, the officers are often removed from the police force. But too late.

Police need better training on how to protect both themselves and citizens they encounter. Too much of the current training appears to encourage a warrior ethic of shoot-first and ask-questions-later. In fact, Officer Yanez attended a controversial seminar called the Bulletproof Warrior in 2014, which some police forces have discouraged their officers from attending.

Yet, even with better training, and with cameras always rolling, the problem wont be solved completely. I do not have all the answers, but as Americans we must find those answers.

Rarely do I agree with Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, but hes hard to rebut when, after police killed Philando Castile in Minnesota and Keith Lamont Scott in North Carolina, last year, he wrote, If you are a black man in America, exercising your constitutional right to keep and bear arms can be fatal.

Black lives matter. Blacks Second Amendment rights matter. If we cannot protect black lives and rights, we cannot protect white lives and rights. Much less all lives and rights.

BREAKING: UN Mission Official Says Terror Attack Underway in Mali Resort Area Popular With Foreigners

See more here:
Black Lives, and Black Second Amendment Rights, Matter - Townhall

Rep. Mo Brooks said Wednesday's shooting at the Republicans' congressional baseball practice has not altered his view of the Second Amendment.

Brooks, R-Ala., was on deck to bat and gave a harrowing account of the gunfire. Asked later whether it had affected his views on gun control, Brooks said, "not with respect to the Second Amendment."

"The Second Amendment right to bear arms is to ensure that we always have a republic. And as with any other constitutional provision in the Bill of Rights, there are adverse aspects to each of those rights that we enjoy as people. And what we just saw here is one of the bad side effects of someone not exercising those rights properly."

Brooks said many amendment rights besides the Second Amendment can have "adverse aspects" as well.

"We're not going to get rid of freedom of speech because some people say some really ugly things that hurt other people's feelings," Brooks said. "We're not going to get rid of Fourth Amendment search and seizure rights because it allows some criminals to go free who should be behind bars. These rights are there to protect Americans, and while each of them has a negative aspect to them, they are fundamental to our being the greatest nation in world history."

Read more:
Rep. Mo Brooks: Baseball shooting doesn't change Second ... - Washington Examiner