Mediaboss Marketing

The Second Amendment is only 27 words, but Americans have used millions of words arguing over what it means. It guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But which people, what arms, and under what circumstances?

Two milestone cases involving the Second Amendment that reached the Supreme Court are District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), declaring an individual has a right to own a firearm, and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), affirming the Second Amendment applies to state law.

WHY JUSTICE GORSUCH WILL HAVE AN IMMEDIATE (AND BIG) IMPACT ON THE SUPREME COURT

Now, if the Supreme Court decides to hear it, there may be a third major case in a decade: Peruta v. California.

At issue is the right to keep and bear arms outside the home.The Heller case specifically applies to situations within the home.Those who have petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case are hoping the justices will see it as a logical extension of their earlier opinions.

The case arose when Edward Peruta and other gun owners who lived in or near San Diego, Calif., couldnt get concealed-carry permits in their county. The Sheriffs Department handles permit requests and requires good cause to carry a gun outside of the home.This does not mean a generalized concern for safety, but something specific, such as fear of domestic violence or a regular need to move large amounts of money.

If the Supreme Court decides to hear it, there may be a third major case in a decade involving the Second Amendment. (Reuters)

There were two separate lawsuits challenging the interpretation of good cause, but the district courts found no violation of the Second Amendment.

CALIFORNIA CONCEALED WEAPON LAW TOSSED BY FED APPEALS COURT

Then, in 2014, a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the policy did indeed violate the right to bear arms for self-defense. The state, however, got a new hearing in front of 11 9th Circuit judges, who decided 7-4, the restrictions for concealed-carry permits were allowable.

The case has now been appealed to the Supreme Court and though the Justices have rescheduled its consideration several times, some experts feel the court is finally ready to hear Peruta.

I suspect theyre going to grant it, said John Eastman, former law dean at Chapman University and the director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.

Eastman told Fox News, its percolating all across the country.

He also feels the justices may have put it off while waiting for a full complement on the court, which they got when Neil Gorsuch was confirmed last month.Gorsuch, in fact, may be the justice to tip the opinion in one direction or the other, as previous Second Amendment cases were determined in a 5-4 ruling.

According to Eugene Volokh, professor of law at University of California at Los Angeles, this case is primed for the Supreme Court, as it deals with a basic constitutional right and the lower courts are split on the issue.

It would be a good time for the highest court to step in and settle the controversy.He also feels that while no one is sure how Gorsuch will vote, there is a sense that hes sympathetic to a broader view of the Second Amendment.

The case may turn on how the court frames the issue.To Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Irvine School of Law, the legal question to be settled is whether a state like California may determine its own rules on concealed-carry permits.

The Second Amendment isnt an absolute right, Chemerinsky notes. Throughout British and American history, theres never been a right to have concealed weapons.

But Eugene Volokh believes theres a bigger issue at stake. If the state of California, which essentially bans open carry of a gun, makes it next to impossible for a typical citizen to get a concealed-carry permit, this is tantamount to banning the right to bear arms except for a few favored people.

Experts agree on one point. As Chemerinsky puts it, if Peruta is taken up, no matter what the Supreme Court says, it will be a landmark decision.

Read more:
Second Amendment case may be headed to Supreme Court

It saddens me to see the amount of gun violence in this country, and it is even worse to see there is nothing being done to stop it. After every shooting, we discuss the horrific event, and we mourn the victims, but when will anything change? Discussion about gun violence and the Second Amendment is great, but when will we take initiative?

Seeing news about shootings or acts of gun violence should never be something to which we become accustomed. These events will keep happening if the amendment is not questioned. I would rather see more regulation in the Second Amendment than feel unsafe everywhere I go. The Bill of Rights was written over 200 years ago, and maybe the Second Amendment was more applicable during that time. Currently, I feel that it's depriving me of my safety rather than giving me the ability to protect myself.

Carly Novell, Parkland

Read the rest here:
Does the Second Amendment really keep us safe? | Letters - Sun Sentinel

One of my main criticisms of many in the gun rights community is that sometimes they act like anti-gunners. Name-calling. Mockery. Screaming. Unprofessionalism. Violence. These are the weapons of the left. Our main arsenal should only consist of the Constitution, the writings of the Founding Fathers, logic, reason, and respect.

Those who follow my Facebook.com/2ndAmendmentUSA page have seen me criticize inappropriate behavior and remove those using harsh profanities against others. I also get upset by irrational claims and outright lies that hurt the firearms community, but I always try to take a breath, collect my thoughts and reply respectfully with logic (The Liberal Bane Cocktail).

Believe it or not, merely acting in a calm professional manner will win more undecideds to our side than all the homicide statistics or constitutional arguments that you can quote.

Last week, the Second Amendment supporting community lost a huge advocate. Bob Owens, founder and editor of BearingArms.com took his own life. Many of his friends, fans and followers were shocked to hear the news. It appears that some on the left celebrated the tragedy.

Jake Tapper of CNN, tweeted For family and friends of @bob_owens so sorry for your loss. Horrible news. For an anchor at a liberal 24-hour news network, this was very professional and respectful. However, his simple thoughtful tweet drew the ire of some of his cohorts. Here are some of the mean-spirited tweets:

Yes Jake, this is indeed a terrible loss. (Followed by a link to a story where Ownes called Trayvon Martin a thug)

-@willmenaker (podcaster/blogger)

Youre making a lot of fun new white supremacists friends Jake! Great place to plant your flag.

-@jacobtierney79 (Writer and director)

When Mr. Tapper tried to stop the spiteful trend, it only got worse.

Jake is crying because were being mean to his dead racist friend

-@leyawn (Internet artist)

Mr. Tapper eventually relented the argument with I didnt know him. Im just an adult. Again, this didnt stop the attacks, insults or mockery.

It seems Jake Tapper may have gotten a small realization of the attitude and hatred of those with his political leanings. Hopefully, he has the guts to stand up to it and possibly even decry it to try to make a change, but its doubtful that will ever happen.

I do not want to give any indication that I think conservatism has won a convert in Jake Tapper. I merely wanted to use an example of why we should be professional and respectful in our demeanor when discussing gun rights with others. Any behavior that is on par with the disrespectfulness mentioned above will surely drive away people who may be on the fence about Second Amendment rights.

Our arguments should not even be arguments. They should be discussions or informative facts. Dont drive away potential converts or supporters by acting like a jerk. You will drive them straight into the arms of Every Town for Gun Safety.

The old saying goes that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. In your 2A advocacy, be sweet and smooth. Let the leftists be salty and bitter.

John Cylc is an eight year U.S. Army veteran. He is also a contributor to LifeZette. To read more of his reports Click Here Now.

2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Link:
Acting Appropriately Is Key to Second Amendment Advocacy - Newsmax

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

It is already legal to carry a handgun openly without a permit in Michigan. The situation is as it was in New Hampshire, where law-abiding citizens could carry their handguns openly without having to ask governments permission but were suddenly obligated to ask government before carrying if their jacket or sweatshirt hung down over the gun.

New Hampshire lawmakerspassed legislation abolishing their concealed carry permit requirement earlier this year and Gov. Chris Sununu (R) signed the bill on February 22. North Dakota followed suit and abolished their concealed permit requirement on March 24, 2017. Now Michigan lawmakers are pushing to make the same change.

The Detroit Free Press reports that Rep. Michele Hoitenga (R-Manton)a sponsor of the permitless carry billsuggested the only reason a permit exists is so the state government can collect fees for the exercise of natural rights.

Hoitenga said:

It is currently legal in the state of Michigan for a law-abiding person to openly carry a firearm on their person without any training classes, fees or state bureaucracy. It only becomes illegal when a person puts on a coat because the gun then becomes concealed. Our Second Amendment should not be used as a money grab for permit fees

Michigan Open Carry president Tom Lambert echoed Hoitenga, equating the fee for a concealed carry permit with a coat tax.

Presently, law-abiding Michigan residents have to pay about $100 to the state and take a class before being allowed to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense. This burdensome fee will be done away with if Hoitengas bill passes and is signed into law.

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.

Read more:
Michigan House Considers Bill to Make 2nd Amendment Your ... - Breitbart News

While the National Rifle Association and North Korea and Iran may not like each other, there is one policy position they all mutually share in common: They all do not approve of the United States government interfering with and preventing their right to own and possess the weapons and armaments they choose in the interests of self-defense.

While the U.S. president might speak in glowing terms of approval to the NRA and threatening disapproval toward North Korea and Iran, his approving comments would probably change and he has become well-known for changing his mind when the guns become known to be pointed in his direction, rather than at his adversaries and opponents.

Neither North Korea nor Iran may understand the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But they readily reflect understanding the principle inherent to the amendment. A Second Amendment interpreted without qualification or reservation creates a formula for self-defense being suddenly transmuted into mass self-destruction.

When any, all and everyone is armed to their maximum ability, at some random unexpected point an equally random and unexpected incendiary spark omnipotently stands to be struck for creating an Armageddon nuclear or otherwise.

We may not know what the spark might be or when it will occur -- but everyone will know when it does, and we will all come to bear the scars for our ignorance.

Read the original here:
Letter, 5/14: Second Amendment ignorance - Lincoln Journal Star