Mediaboss Marketing

Put simply, writes Judge Robert King of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war.

In Kolbe v. Hogan, the court upheld Marylands ban on assault weapons, also known as rifles that look scary to people who know nothing about guns.

As talk radio host Darryl W. Perry of Free Talk Live notes, Kings perversely broad statement would cover a ban on the possession of rocks:

And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth. So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him 1st Samuel, Chapter 17

King also displays a poor grasp of history. No judicial power is required to extend the Second Amendment to cover weapons of war, because theyre precisely what it was intended to cover in the first place.

The Second Amendment was ratified only a few years after a citizen army many of its soldiers armed, at least at first, with weapons brought from home defeated the most fearsome professional military machine in the history of the world, the army of a global empire.

The express purpose of the Second Amendment was to guarantee the continued maintenance of an armed populace. In fact, the Second Militia Act of 1792 legally required every adult able-bodied white American male to own and maintain weapons of war (a musket or rifle, bayonet, powder and bullets) just in case the militia had to be called out.

Even in the 1939 case usually cited to justify victim disarmament (gun control) laws, U.S. v. Miller, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the reason Jack Miller/s short-barreled shotgun could be banned was that it WASNT a weapon of war: [I]t is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Yes, you read that right: The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment applies ONLY to weapons of war. I think thats too narrow myself, but at least it comes at the matter from the correct historical perspective.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is best understood in terms of a quote falsely attributed to Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto of the Japanese navy at the beginning of World War II: You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

Shame on King and the 4th Circuit for failing to uphold the plain meaning of shall not be infringed.

(Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism, thegarrisoncenter.org. He lives and works in north central Florida. Follow him on Twitter @thomaslknapp.)

Read the rest here:
The Second Amendment and 'weapons of war' - The Montgomery Herald

COLUMBIA AVirginia militiaman with a long gun. A 21st century white couple carrying assault weapons in a Starbucks. A black man open carrying arifle in Dallas before being wrongly identified as the suspect whogunned down Dallas police officers last summer.

The images illustrate a topic Saul Cornell has dedicated his life to understanding: the legal carrying and display of guns in the U.S. under the Second Amendment.

He knows the topic is controversial.

"The interesting thing about the Second Amendment is everyones got an opinion on it," Cornell told a packed house of nearly 100 people in Mumford Hall on Wednesday. "I came to the subject of the Second Amendment not because of any great involvement with gun issues. I came to it out of my interest in the way history gets used by legal scholars and courts."

"Theres a complicated history and a very complicated contemporary reality between firearms and issues of race in America," Cornell said.

He explained how black Americans are disproportionately affected by gun violence, saying that African American men are less likely to be shot if they joined the military rather than remaining civilians.

Many of our gun laws, Cornell said, originated in the Antebellum South, which permitted open carrying of guns in public.

Cornell spoke at the last spring public lecture sponsored by the Kinder Institute on Constitutional Democracy, an academic center at MU that emphasizes U.S. Constitutional study, early American history and its relevance today.

He said guns have evolved since adopting the Second Amendment, which means Americans need evolved gun laws.

A Virginia militiaman carrying a long gun couldn't kill as many people as the white couple with assault weapons. Why, then, don't lawmakers enact more regulatory gun legislation parallel to new technology, Cornell asked.

He discussed the differences between the way Americans perceive a white couple and a black man open carrying: the couple celebrated exercising their rights, while police wrongly identified the black man in Dallas as a shooting suspect.

Cornell ended Wednesdays talk by comparing the number of gun-related deaths to car accident deaths in the U.S. He said gun deaths are rising, and the numbers are nearly equal.

"There are more gun stores out there than supermarkets," he said. "That's pretty ridiculous to me."

Traci Wilson-Kleekamp, the president of local activism group Race Matters, Friends, attended the lecture.

"It sounds like you're sort of tip-toeing around this thing on race," Wilson-Kleekamp said. "If you can, be explicit about this connection between slavery and today and our issues with guns."

Cornell said that the South is historically a more violent region, and expressly racial laws originated there.

"People are not aware of how these deep-seeded cultural forms influence their behavior," he said.

He cited a study in which white people often falsely identified guns in pictures with black faces, and simply saw other objects in pictures with white faces.

"It's a deeply, culturally-embedded kind of suspicion, and that makes it harder to extirpate," Cornell said. "Until we recognize it, we can't really move forward."

Read more from the original source:
Second Amendment historian connects race and gun rights - Columbia Missourian

National security and intelligence community journalist Michael Best reported on Thursday that he just got the documents from the Secret Service regarding threats against Hillary Clinton, and they indicate that the Secret Service did see threats against Clinton seemingly as a result of Trumps comment about second amendment people.

Secret Service documents indicate they did see threats against Hillary Clinton seemingly as a result of Trumps 2nd Amendment people comment, Best writes on Twitter, adding, DHS reaction to Trumps 2nd Amendment people comments: YIKES!'

On August 9th, 2016, Donald Trump suggested his supporters might shoot Clinton if she got to pick a Supreme Court judge, By the way, if she (Hillary Clinton) gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks. Although, the Second Amendment people maybe there is. I dont know.

On July 20th, CNN reported that the Secret Service was investigating a Trump adviser after he called for Clintons execution on the radio. Trump adviser Al Baldasaro told a radio host that Clinton should be put in the firing line and shot for treason.

Donald Trump didnt distance himself from Baldarsaro.

Days later, Trump made his second amendment people comment about Clinton getting to fill the Supreme Court seat that Republicans stole from President Barack Obama. Trump supporters and Republicans have tried to pretend his comment wasnt an incitement to violence, but the Secret Service says they did see threats seemingly as a result of Trumps comment.

On the day when Senate Republicans are changing the filibuster rule so they can confirm an extremist to the Supreme Court who was nominated by a president who is under investigation for possible collusion with Russia, the Secret Service confirmed that Trumps call for second amendment people to shoot Clinton if she got to nominate a Supreme Court justice seemingly resulted in threats against her.

Republicans have become radical jihadists inciting violence to get their way, so after not even waiting the average period of time to get Gorusch confirmed, they flipped out and voted to change the Senate rules an act they admitted would ruin the senate. This is the modern day Republican Party. They have become the reactionary hot headed destroyers they chide the far left for being in the 60s.

Republicans arent here for the law and order theyre here to violate laws and norms until they get their way. If they dont get what they want, second amendment people might have to fix it for them.

And if that doesnt work, theyll just change the rules to fit their extremist pick for a seat they already violated precedent to steal from the Democratic president.

With the major victim/persecution complex that colors the Right these days, if the shoe had been on the other foot with these comments, we never would have heard the end of it. There would be investigations into investigations, and leaks and so many more leaks, and conservative journalists illegally recording people to prove how horrible Democrats were. And the press would breathlessly report on the drama, the victimization, the persecution.

If the shoe were on the other foot, elected Democrats would be saying Trump should be shot for treason for all of the Russian connections, since Republicans said that over Clintons hyped up email scandal when she wasnt even found guilty of anything. But Democrats dont roll that way. The Democratic President, Barack Obama, was careful and responsible with his rhetoric.

When it came down to actually inciting violence against his Democratic opponent, Trump supporters and the entire Republican Party enabled and supported Donald Trump. If they werent under a fast gathering cloud of sweeping Russian smoke, this would be a new low for the Republican Party.

As it is, facing possible treason and obstruction of justice accusations, inciting threats against a rival is to be expected. Its how dictators do things.

did Donald Trump incite violence, did donald trump threaten Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, second amendment people

Read the original post:
Secret Service Says Trump's Second Amendment People Comment Led to Threats Against Clinton - PoliticusUSA

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

He referenced the Second Amendment while talking about collegiate sports, contending that NCAA basketball players ought to be paid. In fact, Redick jumped from announcing the end of amateurism in collegiate sports to declaring the end of a Second Amendment that protects 21st century firearms.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Redick said:

The idea of amateurism, it doesnt exist anymore. And so if youre going to do what youre doing, then you just need that complete overhaul. Its got to be something radical. Its not just, Oh, lets just pay every player $5,000. It really requires something really radical. And maybe thats getting rid of college athletics as we know it.

He paraphrased a Thomas Jefferson quote to segue to guns, saying, I go back to the Thomas Jefferson quote Im going to butcher it, but its something weve all read. You wouldnt expect a little boy to wear the pea coat he wore as a boy as a grown man. You need to change with the times.

Redick then addressed gun control, saying laws should evolve in the same way he wants to see collegiate sports evolve. He said:

Laws should reflect that [change], rules, regulations, especially as we know more. Gun control. I dont want to get political, but gun control. Thats something that should evolve as technology evolves. When the 2nd Amendment was created, we had to worry about bears, people lived on the frontier and it took a minute to load a muzzle. I think laws should reflect where we are with guns.

Ironicallyjust one day before Redick made these commentsIndependent Institutes Dave Kopel wrote that gun control arguments framed around musket arguments show a lack of historical knowledge. Writing in The Washington Post, Kopel said:

Gun-control advocates often argue that gun-control laws must be more restrictive than the original meaning of the Second Amendment would allow, because modern firearms are so different from the firearms of the late 18th century. This argument is based on ignorance of the history of firearms. It is true that in 1791 the most common firearms were handguns or long guns that had to be reloaded after every shot. But it is not true that repeating arms, which can fire multiple times without reloading, were unimagined in 1791. To the contrary, repeating arms long predate the 1606 founding of the first English colony in America. As of 1791, repeating arms were available but expensive.

Kopels historical observation helps the reader better understand the Supreme Courts majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). In that opinion, late Justice Antonin Scalia pointed to judicial precedent to show the Second Amendment protects guns in common use at any given time. In other words, at all times the Second Amendment protects the guns commonly owned and used by law-abiding citizens. This means protection for the very 21st century firearms J.J. Redick believes justify more gun control.

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.

See original here:
LA Clippers JJ Redick: Second Amendment Should 'Evolve' to Allow ... - Breitbart News

AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Congressional Art Contest Chance for 'Young Guns' to Honor Second Amendment AmmoLand Shooting Sports News Why not encourage young people who have been raised to value the importance of the Second Amendment to enter the contest, potentially educate some of their peers, and show that a counter exists to indoctrinated snowflakes? Why not urge students to ...

View original post here:
Congressional Art Contest Chance for 'Young Guns' to Honor Second Amendment - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News