Archive for the ‘Second Amendment’ Category

National Reciprocity Is About the Right to Bear the Arms We Keep – Breitbart News

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

We have the right to keep arms, perour Creator, and we have a right to bear them, per our Creator. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison made this clear.

Jefferson wrote, 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.

The gist of his declaration was to remind King George III that colonists had certain rights thatwere theirs bybirth and could not be taken or even diminished by government.This was not to say government did not wrongly shackle the exercise of such rights. In fact, it was such shackling that led the colonists to break free and declare their independence from tyranny.

After the American Revolution, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness were fleshed out in the Bill of Rights, where an enumeration of specific protections for specific rights was set forth. This included the right to freedom of speech and religion (First Amendment), the right to be secure in ones property (Third and Fourth Amendments), the right to be secure in ones person (Fourth Amendment), the right to keep and bear arms (Second Amendment), and many other rights. In fact, the enumeration of God-given rights included a protection on rights not enumerated, yet possessed by the people.

It is the Ninth Amendment which says, The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

None of the amendments protecting Americans God-given rights are worded in a way that would indicate the rights are only viable in citizens hometowns or in their home states. For example, the First Amendment does not say, Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech in your home state. The Fourth Amendment does not say, The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated unless the people are outside the city limits of their hometowns.

It appears silly to think God-given rights to free speech and/or privacy are limited to a physical location. Yet this is what the left says about the rights protected by the Second Amendment; they claim that statesacting like various fiefdomscan morally and legitimately shackle the exercise of God-given rights for visitors passing through their states. In so doing, leftists conduct themselves as if the right to bear arms is only protected from infringement in ones hometown or home state. Once a gun owner begins to travel, he begins to lose rights.

When James Madison fashioned the Second Amendment as part of the Bill of Rights, whichwould be added to the Constitution, is it plausible that he thought, This right is different from all other God-given rights insomuch as it is only valid when the citizen exercising it is at home?

Rather, Montpelier reports that Madison handed the draft for what would become the Second Amendment to a congressional committee, and the wording, as ratified, said, 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.

Our right is not simply to keep arms but also to bear the arms we keep. This lies at the heart of national reciprocity.

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 the original:
National Reciprocity Is About the Right to Bear the Arms We Keep - Breitbart News

Letter: Can you support the Second Amendment without being a nut? – AZCentral.com

JF Finigan 6:35 a.m. MT May 23, 2017

A few cosmetic items does not make an AR-15 a "weapon of war," columnist Joanna Allhands says.

About 400 people gathered Wednesday, April 26, 2017, for the Michigan Second Amendment March at the State Capitol. Pro-gun and legal gun ownership activists met with legislators to discuss gun right issues, to show the political strength of Michigan's legal gun owners.(Photo: MATTHEW DAE SMITH | Lansing State Journal)

Robert Robbs Man up, Brnovich, and get Tucson's gun case out of our court on May 19 never says if Mr. Robb has a problem with Tucson (theoretically) destroying guns in the future, but reminds me of a friends question during a conversation about guns. (The friend has some nice guns and strong opinions.)

(Rephrased with multiple strong expletives deleted.) Is it possible to support the Second Amendment without being a prototypical junior jackass? I think I can answer that.

Back in the day, before the crazies were told by Wayne LaPierre and Charlton Heston that there was a Constitution and Second Amendment thereto, sportsmen owned guns, seasonally hunted birds and big game and participated in sundry activities with their guns.

There was little in the way of gun legislation issues. For example, there was no legislation (as was proposed recently) to require selling guns to the insane if they wanted one. Nope. No siree. Not a bit of it. Nor was there legislation prohibiting the destruction of guns in Tucson.

Unlike today, however, even Republican state legislators had at least an average IQ. No one was waiting for a house to house invasion by the feds to take away peoples guns.

The short answer:People still exist who agree with the Second Amendment, who own firearms and support gun safety training and practices - without wearing cheap camo to the grocery store, without engaging in panic gun buying encouraged by Wayne LaPierre, who dont pass incredibly stupid and unnecessary gun legislation.

But, then, there are also many more of the others.

JF Finigan, San Tan Valley

Read or Share this story: http://azc.cc/2rd6OjV

Here is the original post:
Letter: Can you support the Second Amendment without being a nut? - AZCentral.com

Chiefs can’t ignore Second Amendment – Lowell Sun

For the last two years, I have been on a mission to find the impossible. I have been trying to find the law that allows police chiefs to "do what they want" with firearms licensing. Those words from our city councilors, as well as their repeated claims of not knowing gun laws, rang so loudly in my ears I almost didn't hear Councilor Corey Belanger refer to our rights as "privileges." Now that I knew where they stood, my mission began.

I have asked gun rights groups, lawyers and state legislators, and haven't been cited any law. In fact, when I handed Lowell's firearm policy to a member of the Joint Committee on Public Safety, he said that there were "issues with items 5-10" which happen to be what our chief "wants to do." Another state representative and former police chief told me that chiefs were not allowed to add new requirements.

My path then led back to our City Council. They didn't provide answers before, so I decided to try again. I messaged the council twice in the past weeks -- no cited law. Well, here's a law that I did find on my mission: Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 says, "Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both .

So again, I ask City Council, what Massachusetts General Law allows our police chief to "do whatever he wants" with the Licensing of a Civil Right protected by the Constitution?

To see and hear Councilor Belanger refer to our rights as hobbies and privileges, watch the Jan. 19, 2016, on demand at http://www.ltc.org/watch/channel-99/city-council-on-demand/. He starts speaking around the 55-minute mark. Throughout the meeting, the council refers many times to the chief's ability to set whatever policy he wants.

DANIEL GANNON

Lowell

Link:
Chiefs can't ignore Second Amendment - Lowell Sun

Mec-Gar Introduces Second Amendment 1911 Magazines – Shooting Illustrated (press release) (blog)

Mec-Gar USA announced the introduction of its latest eight-round 1911 magazine, designed to offer support to Second Amendment organizations.

"We have always been strong supporters of the right of people to own and possess firearms," said David Larson, Mec-Gar USA national sales manager. "We are offering this magazine because we see the 1911 as America's gun and are donating a portion of the proceeds to ensure Second Amendment rights are protected."

The magazine is designed for .45 ACP-chambered guns only and features the full text of the Second Amendment engraved on the body of the magazine. The magazine is constructed using carbon steel and features heat treatment for added strength, as well as a blued finish to prevent corrosion.

The magazine spring is made using Type D music wire, and the magazine's construction is finished of with a polymer baseplate that is designed to withstand high-impact treatment. The baseplate is also easily removable for cleaning.

Mec-Gar is donating 10 percent of the profits from the sale of each of these Second Amendment 1911 pistol magazines to organizations that fight for the right to bear arms. The suggested retail price on the new magazines is $29.20.

Read more:
Mec-Gar Introduces Second Amendment 1911 Magazines - Shooting Illustrated (press release) (blog)

Second Amendment Case Peruta vs. California May Strike-Out at Supreme Court – NewsBlaze (registration) (blog)

I hope the Supreme Court grants the Peruta cert petition but that is unlikely to happen. The reasons why the cert petition will likely be denied are many and most of the reasons have been addressed in my earlier articles.

This Monday morning we will know whether or not the Peruta concealed carry cert petition is granted, denied or postponed.

Yesterday (Thursday May 18th) was the third time the Peruta cert petition was considered by the justices in private conference. Most cert petitions do not even make it to their first conference, and nearly 99 percent of cert petitions are summarily denied without ever having been considered by the justices.

The always impressive website SCOTUSblog.com analyzes the probability of cert petitions being granted. The Peruta cert petition was relisted from its first conference which is rare and, for these past few years, almost always the case for cert petitions which are granted.

But the Peruta cert petition was relisted to a second and then a third conference of justices. If the Peruta cert petition is neither denied nor granted Monday morning but is instead relisted for another conference then the probability of the cert petition being granted drops from 93.4% to 6.6%.

So far this term, no cert petition has survived its fourth relist.

The US Supreme Court will release its Orders list at 6:30 AM Pacific Time. The folks at SCOTUSblog have one or more people inside the Supreme Court who live-blog the petitions as they are granted as well as live blogging the opinions of the court as they are released.

Although it is likely that the Peruta cert petition will be denied, the justices may decide to hold off until the Norman v. State of Florida Open Carry cert petition is filed.

And who knows, in the unlikely event that I win my appeal against Californias Open Carry bans before a decision is made to grant or deny the Peruta cert petition, my win would moot the Peruta appeal to SCOTUS.

Follow this link:
Second Amendment Case Peruta vs. California May Strike-Out at Supreme Court - NewsBlaze (registration) (blog)