Mediaboss Marketing

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

In other words, in New Hampshire the Second Amendment is your concealed carry permit.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

The billSenate Bill 12was sponsored by state Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley (R), who sought to make laws governing concealed carry congruent with laws governing open carry. It was already legal to openly carry a handgun without a permit for self-defense in New Hampshire, and Bradley saw no reason why concealing the handgun should suddenly require a citizen to get a permit from the government.

The Washington Postquoted Bradley saying, We have historically allowed people to openly carry a pistol. I dont see why you have to get a second permit if youre a law-abiding citizen and legally entitled to own a gun.

Governor Sununu pledged to sign the bill if it reached his desk, and after signing it Wednesday he tweeted that he was proud to have fulfilled a commitmentto residents of New Hampshire:

According to Fox News, Sununu described SB 12 as common-sense legislation. He added, This is about making sure that our laws on our books are keeping people safe while remaining true to the live-free-or-die spirit.

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.

Here is the original post:
New Hampshire: The 2nd Amendment is Your Concealed Carry Permit - Breitbart News

WHEN THE Supreme Court declared in 2008 that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own guns, the justices were careful to assure that various gun control measures could still pass constitutional muster. For example, the court wrote that weapons that are most useful in military service M-16 rifles and the like may be banned.

Since then, appeals courts have had to sort out how that logic applies to specific state-level gun laws. The latest is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which considered a challenge to Marylands restrictions on military-style rifles often referred to as assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. The appeals court rightly found that Marylands law is perfectly reasonable and that the alternative logic dissenters favored is exceptionally dangerous.

For all of the ink the court spilled, its decision centered on a few basic principles. The rifles and magazines that Maryland restricted are military-grade, bear features that make them exceptionally deadly and are unnecessary for self-defense.

The court noted that large-capacity magazines enable shooters to inflict mass casualties while depriving victims and law enforcement officers of opportunities to escape or overwhelm the shooters while they reload their weapons. Good guys with large magazines also may fire many more shots than necessary, endangering bystanders. Military-style rifles, meanwhile, bear a combination of features that increase their lethality: They fire heavy ammunition; they bear flash suppressors that can conceal a shooters location; they can accept grenade launchers, night sights and bayonets.

Throughout, the court could point to a variety of specific examples of mass shootings, from Newtown to San Bernardino to Virginia Tech to Orlando, in which the devices Marylands law regulates were used. More children might have escaped Sandy Hook Elementary Schools classrooms, for example, if the shooter did not have a 30-round magazine. That the magazine was not even larger than that some can hold up to 100 rounds may have saved the lives of nine children who escaped as the gunman reloaded. Given the Supreme Courts plain language about M-16s, it is no stretch of logic to find that the Second Amendment does not protect owning these military-style weapons and accoutrements, or that Maryland had an interest in restricting them.

The courts dissenters argued that military-style rifles and large-capacity magazines are popular tools for self-defense and other legal activities, and as such the government has practically no latitude to restrict ownership of them or, in effect, to do much of anything else in the realm of gun control. This is illogical; an extremely lethal weapon may be popular, but that does not make it constitutionally protected. Moreover, the weapons that Maryland sought to regulate here are emphatically not defensive in nature, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III responded in a concurring opinion. If this statute is struck down, it is difficult to see what class of non-automatic firearms could ever be regulated. If these weapons are outside the legislative compass, then virtually all weapons will be.

Neither the majority on the 4th Circuit nor a reasonable reading of the Constitution demands that extreme result.

Visit link:
Logic wins out on a Maryland gun law - Washington Post

AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

4th Circuit Rules Common Rifles not Protected by Second Amendment AmmoLand Shooting Sports News Arizona -(Ammoland.com)-On 21 February, 2017, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that common semi-automatic rifles are not protected by the Second Amendment of the Constitution. The ban includes semi-automatic rifles that can take detachable ...

More:
4th Circuit Rules Common Rifles not Protected by Second Amendment - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

February 22, 2017 "Assault weapons" are not covered by the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court has found.

On Tuesday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals voted 10-4 to uphold a Maryland law, which bans 45 kinds of guns and places a 10-round limit on gun magazines. The law implemented after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that killed 20 students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn. is intended to protect against gun violence.

For Judge Robert King and the majority in this ruling, certain kinds of rifles are weapons of war, meaning they are not covered under the Second Amendmentfor the purpose of self-defense. That distinction is explicitly drawn in the 2008 Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, Mr. King wrote.

Others on the court sided with gun rights advocates, arguing that the right to bear arms does not depend on the weapon chosen, and noting the popularity of military style rifles.

"For a law-abiding citizen who, for whatever reason, chooses to protect his home with a semi-automatic rifle instead of a semi-automatic handgun, Maryland's law clearly imposes a significant burden on the exercise of the right to arm oneself at home, wrote Judge William Traxlerin a dissent, calling for a stringent review of the decision.

In the wake of shootings like Sandy Hook and Orlando, where so-called military-style "assault" rifles were used, local communities and advocacy groups have pushed for limits on the types of weapons available for sale. After the Orlando shooting, 57 percent of Americans supported a nationwide ban on assault weapons, according to a CBS News poll.

Similar gun control bills have struggled to gain traction in Congress, leaving states to implement their own bans as they see fit. Currently, seven states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws banning semiautomatic rifles, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun control advocacy group.

Some of these laws have faced legal challenges on Second Amendment grounds. In the case of Maryland, the National Rifle Association is exploring its options for appealing the ruling, NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker told the Associated Press.

"It is absurd to hold that the most popular rifle in America is not a protected 'arm' under the Second Amendment, she said, saying the NRA estimates between 5 million and 10 million AR-15s are currently owned legally in the United States. That means, she indicated, that the Maryland ruling goes against a provision inD.C. v. Heller that protects weapons that are in common and lawful use at the time from being banned.

The US Supreme Court has been reluctant to hear such Second Amendment challenges, however. In June, the nations highest court declined to take up cases against similar gun bans in New York and Connecticut.

Legal scholars suggest the Supreme Court typically wont get involved unless lower courts cant reach consensus. In that way, they say, the Supreme Court gives tacit approval to state bans on certain kinds of guns.

The Maryland law, which supporters say backs up the states interest in protecting public safety, is still open to scrutiny at the lower level, and it remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court would consider any Second Amendment challenge.

"Governments are now in the process of testing what restraints the Court will consider to be reasonable and which it will not, John Vile, a constitutional scholar at Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro, told Henry Gass for The Christian Science Monitor in June.

This report contains material from the Associated Press and Reuters.

See the original post here:
Second Amendment does not cover 'weapons of war,' US ...

CNNs Dana Bash: Congressman. Gun control. In 2014, you told Bill Maher that you wished the Democratic Party would come out against the Second Amendment. How do you reach out to Americans who support gun rights when you dont support the Second Amendment?

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.): First of all, let me tell you I remember that show very well, and that is not what I said at all. What I talked about is my grandfathers shotgun, the fact that I am a turkey hunter, and I didnt say that. That was not an accurate statement. []

Bash: Congressman, I just want to read you since you said that that wasnt what you said, Ill read you exactly what happened. Bill Maher: Then why doesnt your party come out against the Second Amendment? Its the problem. Your response: I sure wish they would. I sure wish they would.

Ellison: I wish youd play the tape, because if you did youd see that it did not go that way. But the real point is this, this country absolutely, I am for the right to bear arms, but I am not for these massive murders that happen all over this country every day. exchange during CNN debate with candidates for Democratic National Committee leadership, Feb. 22, 2017

During the debate on CNN, Ellison denied making comments about the Second Amendment during a March 2014 interview on Real Time with Bill Maher. We were curious to know exactly what he said during the interview, and whether he was being truthful in his response to Bash.

Since Ellison said to check the clips, we did. We found that the answer is not really clear, so we decided to present the comments in full for our readers.

The exchange in question begins around the four-minute mark in the video below. (A higher-quality video is here.)

Earlier in the clip, Ellison talks about family members who own guns and go hunting, and says that he is for gun control, but I dont think you have got to eliminate ownership of all guns in order to get some common-sense gun rules.

Later, Maher asks: Then why doesnt your party come out against the Second Amendment? Its the problem.

The crowd laughs, and then Sheila Bair, former chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., interjects. She seems to say: Fifty-one votes, thats all it takes. The crowd, Bair and Ellison all laugh. Ellison then says: I sure wish they would, I sure wish they would.

Ellisons campaign staff says his answer was a reference to Bairs comment, and not an answer to Mahers question.

Bair, through a spokesman, said the vote she was referring to was the nomination of former Surgeon General Vivek Murthy. At the time of this interview, Murthy had been waiting for confirmation for 16 months and could not get the 51 votes in the Senate to get confirmed. She thinks that nomination started the conversation [about gun control]. But it was a long time ago, her spokesman said.

Murthys nomination had been in limbo, partly because of opposition from the gun lobby. The National Rifle Association had called him a serious threat to the rights of gun owners because Murthy supported stricter gun control laws:

Even moderate Senate Democrats from states with strong gun cultures opposed Murthy. At the time of the Maher interview, the White House was considering withdrawing Murthys troubled nomination, after it became clear moderate Democrats up for reelection would not support Murthy because of his stance on gun control.

Heres a transcript:

Sheila Bair: Im a Republican and Im for gun control. I just want to be its not monolithic. Keith Ellison: Well, Im for gun control, too. Let me just say, Im for gun control but I dont think you have got to eliminate ownership of all guns in order to get some common-sense gun rules. Bair: No, you dont. Ellison: I mean, 27 children were mowed down. Isnt that enough for us? One of our colleagues, [former congresswoman] Gabby Giffords, shot in the face. Maher: Then why doesnt your party come out against the Second Amendment? Its the problem. [Crosstalk] Ellison: Bill Bair: Fifty-one votes, thats all it takes. [Laughter] Ellison: I sure wish they would. I sure wish they would. Maher: Really? Ellison: Yeah. Maher: Because I never hear anybody in the Democratic Party say that. But they say, I am also a strong supporter. Ellison: You have got to check out the progressive caucus. We have come out very strong for common-sense gun safety rules.

After some back-and-forth with Maher, Ellison later says: You cant solve the problem with just one little thing. Youve got to make sure that the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] can issue reports on gun killings and handgun violence. Youve got to make sure that we can get rid of assault weapons. Youve got to close the loophole at gun shows. Youve got to do a whole range of things to get us into a sane place. Weve got 12,000 handgun murders a year. Its got to stop.

Its not entirely clear whether Ellison really was talking about Murthys nomination, the Second Amendment or votes on gun-control measures in general. But it is clear throughout the interview that Ellison says he supports both gun-control measures and the rights of gun owners. At one point, he says he is for gun control, but I dont think you have got to eliminate ownership of all guns in order to get some common-sense gun rules.

Of course, supporters of gun rights likely would consider the measures Ellison proposes as effectively gutting Second Amendment rights. Still, there seems to be more going on in the conversation that is not immediately clear in the transcripts that Dana Bash read during the debate. A constitutional amendment that would have nullified the Second Amendment would requirea two-thirds vote by the House and Senate, and then ratification by three-fourths of the states. So Bairs interjection of 51 votes makes it likely that theexchange was alluding to Murthys confirmation, rather than a constitutional amendment.

Given the murky information at hand, we will not rate this claim. We welcome readers to reach their own conclusions.

(About our rating scale)

Send us facts to check by filling out this form

Keep tabs on Trumps promises with our Trump Promise Tracker

Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter

See the rest here:
Keith Ellison's comments on the Second Amendment: For the record - Washington Post