Archive for the ‘Second Amendment’ Category

FYI , AR-15 Rifles Are No Longer Included in Second Amendment – AmmoLand Shooting Sports News


AmmoLand Shooting Sports News
FYI , AR-15 Rifles Are No Longer Included in Second Amendment
AmmoLand Shooting Sports News
Buckeye, AZ -(Ammoland.com)- By now you've probably heard about the Federal Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit's horrible anti-rights decision declaring that so-called assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second ...

More here:
FYI , AR-15 Rifles Are No Longer Included in Second Amendment - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Pennsylvania Court: Automatic Knives not Protected by Second Amendment – AmmoLand Shooting Sports News


AmmoLand Shooting Sports News
Pennsylvania Court: Automatic Knives not Protected by Second Amendment
AmmoLand Shooting Sports News
An appeal was filed shortly after the conviction, based solely on the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The appeal did not reference Pennsylvania's state Constitution. Pennsylvania has a strong right to bear arms provision in ...

Go here to read the rest:
Pennsylvania Court: Automatic Knives not Protected by Second Amendment - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Second Amendment’s illogical conclusion | Letter – The Courier-Journal

Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

Where do you draw the line on the spectrum of weapons between, say, rocks and any weapons of mass destruction?

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend's email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

CJ Letter 2:23 p.m. ET March 10, 2017

Nuclear explosion(Photo: RomoloTavani, Getty Images/iStockphoto)

I am curious if Mr. Milby - Reader's Forum "Weapons of war protected by Second Amendment" March 8, 2017- believes that Second Amendment rights extend to nuclear weapons. If not, where does he draw the line on the spectrum of weapons between, say,rocks and anyweapons of mass destruction?In addition tonuclear bombs, are chemical weapons covered by the Second Amendment? What about lasers from satellites? Ballistic missiles? As a private citizen, I just want to know what I and my fellow citizens have a right to own and use in order to defendourselves from tyranny, government or otherwise. Or, maybe the interpretation of the Second Amendment should be more nuanced than Mr. Milby proclaims.

Christopher Rife

Louisville40291

Read or Share this story: http://cjky.it/2mu9SES

3:45

3:13

3:46

3:46

3:28

4:00

1:53

2:18

6:56

7:28

3:15

3:05

3:51

3:38

3:12

2:41

3:38

2:31

3:22

3:45

1:33

1:56

3:24

3:03

3:39

3:14

3:37

3:56

3:01

2:19

0) { %>

0) { %>

See the rest here:
Second Amendment's illogical conclusion | Letter - The Courier-Journal

Your Help Urgently Needed to Protect the Second Amendment Rights of America’s Veterans! – NRA ILA

Americas veterans helped protect us. Now we can ensure they themselves are not arbitrarily denied the right of self-protection.

On Wednesday, the House Committee on Veterans Affairs marked up and favorably reported H.R. 1181, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, sponsored by Committee Chairman Phil Roe, M.D. (R-TN). The bill now moves to the full U.S. House, where a vote could come as early as next week.

H.R. 1181 is meant to deal with a longstanding and shameful practice by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which administers disability benefits for veterans and their families. Under this practice, anyone who the VA declares incompetent to manage his or her own benefits and assigns a fiduciary is automatically reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) as a prohibited mental defective. The person is then subject to a lifetime ban on the acquisition and possession of firearms, unless he or she successfully petitions for relief from disabilities.

As of Dec. 31, 2016, the NICS contained 167,815 active records submitted by the VA under this program.

The VAs program suffers from a number of legal and practical issues.

Above all, it does not attempt to identify which beneficiaries have mental illnesses that actually cause them to be a danger to themselves or others. Rather, it merely targets individuals who have been identified as needing help to manage their benefits. Yet there is no scientific or empirical evidence to support the idea that needing help managing money is the same thing as being too dangerous or irresponsible to safely handle a firearm.

Second, the statute on which the reporting is based prohibits firearm acquisition or possession by persons who have been adjudicated as a mental defective. While these terms are not defined in the statute, the purely bureaucratic process by which a fiduciary is assigned which in most cases does not involve a hearing, much less a judge is hardly the sort of procedure most would consider an adjudication. And the only issue at stake is whether the person needs help with his or her finances. It does not affect rights other than under the Second Amendment, including the right to form legally binding contracts, vote, hold office, serve on a jury, etc.

While the VA does theoretically make relief available after the fact, few of the beneficiaries affected by the program have the means to negotiate the highly bureaucratic process, which may also require expensive mental health evaluations and legal aid. The procedure also turns due process on its head by forcing the petitioner to prove by a high standard of evidence that he or she is not a risk to public safety, a premise the government was never required to establish in the original adjudication.

The VAs own records showed that as of April 2015, only 3% of relief petitions had been granted. And the decision makers considering the petitions are the same sorts of VA bureaucrats who made the original fiduciary determination, not an independent judge or magistrate.

H.R. 1181 would change all this by ensuring that the VA could only report a beneficiary to NICS as prohibited mental defective if a judicial authority had already made a finding that the person is a danger to self or others. This would ensure due process, as well protect those who simply need help managing their finances but are not at increased risk of committing a dangerous act with a firearm.

President Trump signed a measure into law last month that prevented the Social Security Administration from going through with a plan to implement a similar reporting system for certain of its Disability or Supplementary Security Income beneficiaries assigned representative payees.

And the House had passed a bill to halt VAs program in 2011, which eventually died in the Senate.

Action to stop this unconscionable infringement of veterans Second Amendment Rights is long overdue.

Please contact your congressional representative NOW and respectfully ask him or her to vote YES on H.R. 1181, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act. You can call the Congressional Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask to be connected to your representatives office, or you can send an email using our Take Action tool.

Americas veterans answered the call to serve for the good of all. Now is your chance to ensure their rights are protected. Dont delay. Please call or write your representative today.

Read more:
Your Help Urgently Needed to Protect the Second Amendment Rights of America's Veterans! - NRA ILA

The Second Amendment and ‘weapons of war’ – The Fayette Tribune

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.)

Excerpt from:
The Second Amendment and 'weapons of war' - The Fayette Tribune