Mediaboss Marketing

Since August of 2015, Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, has takena stance against the Social Security Administrations action to provide names of Social Security recipients to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Neil W. McCabe, from Breitbart, has confirmed that Senator Manchin will continue his support by voting to overturn this overreach of the SSA. This will eliminate pending restrictions of the right to bear arms onsome of the countrys most vulnerable citizens.

In a statement released on Manchins website, the senator said:

As a law-abiding gun owner, hunter, card-carrying life member of the NRA and Second Amendment advocate, I have always supported a West Virginians right to bear arms.This potential overreach by the Social Security Administration is a blatant infringement on the Second Amendment rights of millions of Americans. The assumption by the SSA that seniors and individuals with certain disabilities are a threat to society is both inaccurate and misguided and should not be grounds to revoke someones constitutional rights. That is why I joined my colleagues in strongly urging the Administration to end efforts to move forward with this proposal.

Its important topoint outthatpeople need to do their research and stop jumping to dangerous conclusions that are not based in fact. Disability status based upon age orvarious diseases does not equate to a person being inherently dangerous to themselves or anyone else.

Under a law enacted during the Obama Administration, the private information that the SSA could turnoverwould reside within the NICS database, which currently houses the names of individuals prohibited from purchasing or carrying a firearm. It is a violation of an individuals rights and privacy for the SSA to make their owndetermination about thoserecipients future actions based solely upon receiving certain benefitswithout the due process of the law. Once a persons information is entered into the NICS database, theywill immediately be deemed a threat to society. This will stand without any additional proof, other than the SSAs determination of having a propensity for or history of a violent past, present, or future.

Fortunately repealing this infringement upon millions of Americans right to bear arms seems to have gained strength during this new Congress.

The bill is currently awaiting movement in the Senate, where it currently resides after having passed through the House.

Author's Bio: Pamela Jablonski

Link:
The Fight to Ensure the Right to Bear Arms for Social Security Recipients Continues - Bearing Arms

Mark L. Hopkins More Content Now

This preoccupation with the Second Amendment began a few months back when I wrote a column entitled Guns dont kill people. Really? The amount of interest in that topic directed me to do additional research on the subject and every avenue pointed back to the key question. Why did we need a militia/gun amendment added to the Constitution? As is true with most momentous decisions in the life of our country, to fully understand why something was done we must study the times in which such decisions were made. The why of the Second Amendment in the 1780s is very different from answering that same question in 2017. The United States was a very different country in the years following the Revolution than it is today. When President Washington first took office two key challenges faced him and the leadership in congress. First, the Revolutionary War had concluded just eight years before. England had been defeated on our shores and withdrew their troops. However, that didnt make us the strongest nation on the globe. England still had the strongest combination of army and navy. They still controlled Canada, just a short trip up the Hudson River from New York City. In short, they were still a threat to us. At the conclusion of the war, General Washington and the leadership in Congress did not have the money to support a standing army. It was the consensus that the U.S. must make do with smaller, live-at-home militia units in the various states rather than a centralized army. Thus, it was their hope that the new country could be protected with a citizen army that was armed and ready to be called up at a moments notice. To make that work each military age male needed to be armed and ready if needed. Second, several citizen rebellions had occurred between the end of the war and the time of the passage of the new Constitution. Principal among these were the Shays Rebellion in Massachusetts and the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania. Without the creation of a local militia neither state had the firepower to protect the government or the people. In short, our young country did not have the money to support a standing army so adding the Second Amendment was for the expressed purpose of making sure that each state had the legal right to call men to arms. Just as important, it was necessary that those men were able to join the militia fully armed and ready to defend their state and their government. The contention from some that the framers of the Constitution adopted the Second Amendment because they wanted an armed population that could take down the U.S. government should it become tyrannical just has no credence in history. In past columns about the Second Amendment, we have established the historical context of the creation of the Second Amendment. The primary purpose was to create a legal foundation for a state militia, the forerunner of our National Guard. President Washington not only wrote letters to support such action but actually created his own militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania. Congress supported his action by creating The Militia Act, that allowed states to call up militia units to protect the government and the people as needed. Resources used for these columns on the Second Amendment came from His Excellency: George Washington by Joseph Ellis (2004), James Madisons arguments for a strong federal government in The Federalist Papers, (1777-78) and The Readers Companion to American History by John A. Garraty and Eric Foner, which tells the stories of Shays Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. If a reader missed the two earlier columns, contact me at presnet@presnet.net for copies. Dr. Mark L. Hopkins writes for More Content Now and Scripps Newspapers. He is past president of colleges and universities in four states and currently serves as executive director of a higher-education consulting service. You will find Hopkins latest book, Journey to Gettysburg, on Amazon.com. Contact him at presnet@presnet.net.

Read more from the original source:
Mark L. Hopkins: Why did the US Constitution need the Second Amendment? - Wicked Local Watertown

5479349

With the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to replace Antonin Scalia on the Surpeme Court, Second Amendment supporters can celebrate. That would be very premature.

The battle over the confirmation of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General is going to be a cakewalk compared to the fight over Gorsuch. You have some snowflakes on the Left crying about how this Supreme Court seat was stolen from Merrick Garland (conveniently ignoring that Joe Biden threatened to do the same in 1992, and Schumer made similar comments in 2008).

What do you expect when the fight is for all the marbles? In this case, Gorsuch is a likely fifth vote to uphold the ruling made by the District Court in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands that tossed a semi-auto ban and a number of other strict gun laws. Hes the fifth vote that secures the Heller ruling that recognized the Second Amendment as an individual right and which tossed out D.C.s handgun ban. The McDonald case, which extended the prohibition on banning handguns to the states, is also secure.

When Gorsuch is confirmed and that, folks, is gonna be one hell of a fight. Senator Chuck Schumer wants 60 votes for confirmation. I dont necessarily object to that popping off the nuke option now makes it easier to replace the next openings (potentially Ginsburg and Breyer) with reliable conservatives. The good news is that Gorsuch briefly hit the 60-vote threshold until Jeanne Shaheen flip-flopped. This is why Kelly Ayotte and Mark Kirk mattered, people. Better to have started from 54 to work your way to 60, than the present 52.

In short, we need eight Democrats to cross over and vote. And while there are a lot of Senate Democrats facing re-election in states Trump won, to win their primaries, they must show fealty to the activists, donors, and Party leadership. Who do you think provides the money for the DNC efforts on behalf of Heidi Heitkamp, Jon Tester, and Joe Donnelly? The same folks who also donate to the DNC efforts for Chuck Schumer and the most anti-gun members of the House and Senate. By the way, did Heitkamp, Tester, and Donnelly back Jeff Sessions as AG? No.

The good news, if anything, is that the anti-Second Amendment forces and the rest of the Left seem to have been unable to really reach beyond their base on the issue of guns. Furthermore, outside that issue, Trump has made some serious progress (notably in bring jobs in). If that continues over the next four years, we could see significant gains in the Senate and a second Trump term.

That is a big if, though. The one thing we have seen in the first weeks is that the Left isnt just going to roll over after losing the 2016 presidential election. If anything, they intend to fight as furiously as they can to take our rights, and they are going to be persistent about it. We will need to match that persistence and fury to keep our rights.

Read the rest here:
Will Sixty Senators Vote To Protect The Second Amendment? - Daily Caller

Proposals involving guns are always controversial (File photo) Proposals involving guns are always controversial (File photo)

LAKEVIEW, Ore. - A measure challenging gun regulations is popping up around the state. Since 2015, four counties have passed a measure known as the Second Amendment Preservation ordinance, and commissioners in Malheur, Union and Lake counties have heard the same measure in the past few weeks.

The ordinance is a reaction to the Oregon Firearms Safety Act, passed by the state Legislature in 2015, which requires background checks for transfers of firearms between private parties. These county ordinances allow sheriffs to ignore this law - which gun advocates see as unconstitutional.

But Ceasefire Oregon Executive Director Penny Okamoto said there's a fatal flaw in the measure.

"There's an Oregon firearms pre-emption law that states that counties, municipalities, cities actually can't make certain laws regarding certain aspects of firearm sales, ownership, storage," Okamoto said. "So these ordinances or resolutions really are largely very symbolic."

The legality of this ordinance is still in question.

Rob Taylor of Coos County is one of the chief petitioners for the Second Amendment Preservation ordinance. He said he wants Oregon to have what he called "sanctuary counties" for the Second Amendment.

"The same way Oregon has become a sanctuary state for immigration," he said.

While Okamoto and Taylor disagree over the measure, they both point to poor mental health services for Oregonians and the importance of addressing those shortfalls to prevent violence.

Taylor said Gov. Kate Brown's proposal to shut down a mental health hospital in Junction City could hurt the people it serves.

"It doesn't matter whether they get a gun or a car or a bomb. If they have those thoughts, they're going to act upon it," he said. "And so the best thing to do is to have places like mental hospitals so we can have people go and get those problems healed or cured."

Okamoto said one of the biggest concerns related to gun violence is suicide, which accounts for most of the violent deaths from guns.

"You can pass all these ordinances you want, but that's not really taking a look at the fact that a lot of people in these rural counties are using their guns to kill themselves," she said. "And that's an issue that really needs to be addressed."

See the original post:
Oregon counties' gun measures spark debate - KTVZ

Mark L. Hopkins More Content Now

This is the second in a series of columns that relate to the purpose of the Second Amendment and the gun rights issue that continues to fester in our society. The first column pointed out the strong desire on the part of the leadership of the country to have a strong federal government. The focus here is in the feeling of necessity in the leadership to have a means to enforce federal law and to protect the government from citizen rebellions. The Second Amendment became the law of the land in 1791. Prior to that Daniel Shays, a former captain in the Continental Army, became the leader of a citizens rebellion in Massachusetts in response to what Shays and other farmers believed were high taxes and a government that was unresponsive to their grievances. In January 1787, they raided the arsenal in Springfield, Massachusetts and continued their anti-government rebellions through the winter of that year. This was two years before the writing of the U.S. Bill of Rights with its all-important Second Amendment. Retired General George Washington was so upset by Shays Rebellion that he wrote three letters commenting on it. Excerpts from these letters follow: But for Gods sake tell me what is the cause of all these commotions. Do they proceed from licentiousness, British influence disseminated by Tories, or real grievances which admit of redress? In a second letter he worried that, Commotion of this sort, like snowballs, gather strength as they roll, if there is no opposition in the way to divide and crumble them. I am mortified beyond expression that in the moment of our acknowledged independence we should by our conduct verify the predictions of our transatlantic foe, and render ourselves ridiculous and contemptible in the eyes of all Europe. Later he wrote, If three years ago any person had told me that at this day I should see such a formidable rebellion against the laws and constitutions or our own making as now appears, I should have thought him a bedlamite, a fit subject for a mad house. Shays Rebellion was eventually put down when a group of wealthy merchants in Boston pooled their resources and created their own militia to quell the uprising. In the early 1790s, a second major rebellion began in Western Pennsylvania. It was called the Whiskey Rebellion and, again, was a revolt against taxes. Thus, the Second Amendment was written and signed into law in the shadow of these two major citizens rebellions. The U.S. Congress reacted to this second major rebellion by passing The Militia Act which gave teeth to the Second Amendment by requiring all military-age free adults to stand for service to enforce the laws of the Union, thereby insuring domestic tranquility. President Washington himself gave orders to form a militia of 13,000 men to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. His words later were ..this is how a well-regulated Militia should be used to serve the government in maintaining a strong security in each state, as the Second Amendment of The Bill of Rights intended. From the letters written by George Washington and the actions of Congress it is obvious that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to strengthen the Federal Government against rebellion and insurrection. It was not, as some contend, to equip the citizens to make war on the government. In fact, it was just the opposite. My first of the three gun rights columns focused on the desire of the U.S. leadership to have a strong central government and the means to protect that government from rebellion. In this column the focus has been on the like-minded efforts of both President George Washington and Congress to put teeth in the Second Amendment so security and an orderly society could be fostered. My third and final column on this subject will come next week.

Dr. Mark L. Hopkins writes for More Content Now and Scripps Newspapers. He is past president of colleges and universities in four states and currently serves as executive director of a higher-education consulting service. You will find Hopkins latest book, Journey to Gettysburg, on Amazon.com. Contact him at presnet@presnet.net.

See the original post here:
Mark L. Hopkins: The Second Amendment and Shays' Rebellion - Wicked Local Watertown