LifeZette | You Won't Believe Why This Dad Is So Pro-Second Amendment ... LifeZette On the day that President Donald Trump addressed the NRA in Atlanta, the first president to do so since President Ronald Reagan, I wanted to share my thoug. Don't Tell The Anti-Gun Media, But Black Women Are Starting To ... |
Original post:
You Won't Believe Why This Dad Is So Pro-Second Amendment ... - LifeZette
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
This is the same position our Founding Fathers held; the same position they all supported with their signatures when signing the Declaration of Independence, which says:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
It is crucial to note two things in this portion of the Declaration: 1. Thomas Jefferson sourced our rights in our Creator, not in government or in a majority vote of the population. 2. Jefferson sourced governments power in the people.In other words, governments possess powers, not rights, and the U.S. government only has power because the people lend it a portion of the authority that they possess by birth.
And the authority which the people lend government never communicates permission to infringe on the rights with which the people were endowed. (This is why James Madison used Federalist 46 to stress that ultimate authorityresides in the people alone.)
Enter Marty Daniel of Daniel Defense. Marty told Breitbart News that the Second Amendment must be protected because it is sourced in our Creator. He juxtaposed Second Amendment rights with the gospel and said that he views it as his job to protect both because both flow to us from God.
Marty said, We are in business, we believe, to be a supporter of the gospel. And, therefore, a supporter of the Second Amendment. In other words, not only do we have these Second Amendment rights because God gives them to us but also the gospel. Marty went on to stress his conviction that Daniel Defense [supports] the freedom of the gospel by supporting the Second Amendment.
It is interesting to note that President Donald Trump struck a similar tone when speaking to the NRA-ILA Leadership Forum on April 28. Trump said, Freedom is not a gift from government, freedom is a gift from God.
AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and thehost 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.
See more here:
Daniel Defense: Second Amendment Rights Come From God, Not Government - Breitbart News
Chris W. Cox 11:04 p.m. CT April 29, 2017
A quill pen.(Photo: Special to the News Journal)
After eight long years, we once again have a president who respects and cherishes individual freedom. For Americas law-abiding gun owners, the Trump administration is proving to be among the best in history. So its important to take stock of all he has accomplished on behalf of the Second Amendment in a very short time.
Thanks to President Trump, we are now back to having a 5-4 pro-gun majority on the U.S. Supreme Court. He appointed Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, which means the Department of Justice will return to focusing on prosecuting violent criminals instead of targeting law-abiding gun owners. In Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke, Trump has appointed a man who is firmly committed to protecting hunting and shooting as priority uses on our public lands. In fact, Zinke repealed one of Barack Obamas most egregious anti-gun policies on his very first day on the job.
RELATED CONTENT:Trump: I thought being president would be easier
Ultimately, politicians are judged on whether they keep their promises. For law-abiding gun owners, Trump has kept his promises, after running as the most pro-Second Amendment candidate in history.
Soon after his inauguration, the president nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Justice Gorsuch believes in interpreting the law as the Framers intended. He will follow the example of Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in the most important Second Amendment decision in modern history, District of Columbic v. Heller. That case reaffirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right of an individual to keep a firearm in their home for self-defense. Neil Gorsuch will protect that right.
Sessions will restore the rule of law to the Justice Department. As our nations chief law enforcement officer, he will work vigorously to respect individual freedoms of American citizens while making our communities safer by cracking down on violent criminals.
RELATED CONTENT:The Trump Years: Hope, Fear, Elation, Angst in 100 days
Trump also made good on his promise when he nominated Zinke to lead the Interior Department. Zinke, a former Navy Seal and avid outdoorsman, repealed the Obama administration's ban on lead ammo on federal land on his first day in office. He knows that Americas sportsmen and women are critical to conservation and understands that management decisions must recognize the importance of hunting, shooting, and other traditional uses on public lands.
Trump has also acted to protect the self-defense rights of Social Security beneficiaries, repealing an eleventh-hour Obama rule that banned them.
For all he has accomplished, there is still a lot of work to do. Our fight is not over. But in Trump, we now have a president who truly believes in individual freedom.
Chris W. Cox is executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action.
Read or Share this story: http://on.pnj.com/2piivDy
Read the original here:
Guest view: Trump delivers 100 days of Second Amendment victories - Pensacola News Journal
Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant addresses a small crowd at a college leadership event during the National Rifle Associations annual convention in Atlanta on Saturday, April 29, 2017. (Photo: Jared Morgan/Guns.com)
ATLANTAMississippi Gov. Phil Bryant on Saturday urged a small group of college students and others to take up arms in defense of the Second Amendment.
If you think the left isnt coming for your guns, look at Australia, he said. The only thing the left is upset about, the only thing they fear is the Second Amendment.
His remarks came at a college leadership forum during the National Rifle Associations annual convention in Atlanta, Georgia on Saturday.
Mississippi has traditionally been a strong gun rights state, but last year Bryant signed a bill allowing permitless carry there. Bryant, a former deputy sheriff, also touted his own gun ownership.
If theres an active shooter at the capitol, Im not going to hide behind my desk, Bryant said. Im going to put some led down range on someone.
Bryant slammed liberals for trying to control gun legislation.
They believe that somewhere they can tell us what to do, Bryant said, adding that liberals want a bureaucracy of control.
That control extends to college campuses, Bryant said, ribbing Greek literature and music appreciation majors he said are the ones most likely to come out to riot.
They wont take away Second Amendment rights, Bryant said. We will not go quietly into the night.
Follow this link:
Mississippi governor tells college students to fight for Second Amendment - Guns.com
Does the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms extend outside the home? Does it cover the right to carry concealed firearms in public? An important case now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court for possible review may provide definitive legal answers.
At issue in Peruta v. California is a state law that says conceal-carry permits will only be issued to those persons who have demonstrated to the satisfaction of their local county sheriff that they have a "good cause" for carrying a concealed firearm in public. What counts as a "good cause?" In the words of one San Diego official, "one's personal safety is not considered good cause." In effect, the local sheriff has vast discretion to pick and choose who gets a permit and who doesn't. Because the guidelines are unclear there is a severe risk of arbitrary enforcement. As one previous court ruling on the matter observed, "in California the only way that the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen can carry a weapon in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense is with a concealed-carry permit. And, in San Diego County, that option has been taken off the table."
A constitutional challenge to this law inevitably followed. But that challenge suffered a major defeat in June 2016 when San Diego's "good cause" requirement was upheld by a divided 11-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on the grounds that the Second Amendment offers no protection for gun owners in this area. "Because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public," the 9th Circuit majority said, "any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carryincluding a requirement of 'good cause,' however definedis necessarily allowed by the Amendment."
In January 2017 Edward Peruta and his fellow petitioners asked the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and overturn that 9th Circuit ruling. According to the Court's docket, their petition has now been considered by the justices in private conferences held on March 24, on March 31, on April 13, and on April 21, but no decision has yet been reached. This Friday, April 28, is the next private conference on the Court's calendar, and the justices are scheduled to consider the Peruta petition once again.
There are good reasons for the Court to take the case. While the 9th Circuit has endorsed a narrow interpretation of the Second Amendment's reach outside the home, other federal circuits have arrived at a different interpretation. In its 2012 decision in Moore v. Madigan, for example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit struck down Illinois' statewide ban on carrying arms in public on the grounds that it violated the Second Amendment. "One doesn't need to be a historian to realize that a right to keep and bear arms in the eighteenth century could not rationally have been limited to the home," the 7th Circuit held.
That kind of circuit split is usually enough to get the Supreme Court's attention.
The justices may also be interested in settling a debate about federalism and the role of the federal courts that is lurking in the background of this case. For example, the gun control side insists that state and local officials are best positioned to balance the rights of gun owners against the specific local needs for more stringent firearms regulations. According to this view, federal judges should defer to these sorts of state and local decisions. By contrast, the gun rights side insists that the idea of constitutional liberty is turned on its head when a provision of the Bill of Rights is restricted in one part of the country and respected in another. This view urges the federal courts to consistently enforce the Second Amendment nationwide.
We may find out as soon as this Friday if the Supreme Court decides to take the case.
Read this article:
Is This the Supreme Court's Next Big Second Amendment Case? - Reason (blog)