Mediaboss Marketing

Please enable Javascript to watch this video

CARMEL, Ind. - Organizations calling for stricter gun laws and Second Amendment supporters united Wednesday for National Ask Day.

The day is put on by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Brady Organization and encourages parents to ask the caretakers of their children's friends if guns are stored safely in the home.

It may sound intrusive, but I think its totally appropriate to say, are there guns in the home? Are those guns locked up? Are they secure?'" gun advocate and founder of The Law Office of Guy A. Relford, Guy Relford, said. "And thats not an anti-gun message.Im the most ardent second amendment supporter there is, but I wouldnt hesitate to ask those questions. Just because I store my guns responsibly that doesnt mean everyone does, and if anyone is offended by that I dont think they are taking the safety of the child as their first priority.

Relford has taught gun safety for more than 20 years to children and adults. He said gun safety is a sometimes a difficult conversation for parents to have with their children, but it shouldn't be.

"I dont put gun safety in any different category than any other kind of safety whether youre talking about swimming pool safety or traffic safety," Relford said. "Your kids won't be under your belt all the time so those kids need to know how to react if they come across a gun."

The Pew Research Center said about a third of homes in America that have kids in them also have gun and a study recently published in the journal, "Pediatrics," found 1,300 children die from a gun-related injury each year.

See the article here:
National Ask Day unites Second Amendment supporters and groups calling for stricter gun laws - WTTV CBS4Indy

Philando Castile did what you are supposed to do if you have a concealed-carry permit and get pulled over by police: He let the officer know he had a gun. Had Castile been less forthcoming, he would still be alive.

Last Friday, a Minnesota jury acquitted the cop who killed Castile of second-degree manslaughter, demonstrating once again how hard it is to hold police accountable when they use unnecessary force. The verdict also sends a chilling message to gun owners, since Castile is dead because he exercised his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

OPINION

Jeronimo Yanez, an officer employed by the St. Anthony, Minnesota, police department, stopped Castile around 9 p.m. on July 6 in Falcon Heights, a suburb of Minneapolis and St. Paul. The official reason was a nonfunctioning brake light.

The actual reason, according to Yanez, was that Castile resembled a suspect in a convenience store robbery that had happened four days before in the same neighborhood. The full extent of the resemblance was that Castile, like the suspect, was black, wore glasses and dreadlocks, and had a wide-set nose.

Castile, a 32-year-old cafeteria manager, had nothing to do with the robbery. But in Yanezs mind, Castile posed a threat.

The traffic stop began politely but turned deadly within a minute. Audio and video of the encounter show that Yanez asked for Castiles proof of insurance and drivers license.

After Castile handed over his insurance card, he calmly informed Yanez, Sir, I have to tell you that I do have a firearm on me. Yanez interrupted him, saying, OK, dont reach for it, then.

Castile and his girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, who was sitting in the front passenger seat, repeatedly assured the officer that Castile was not reaching for the weapon. But by now Yanez was in full panic mode.

Dont pull it out! he screamed, immediately drawing his weapon and firing seven rounds into the car, heedless of Reynolds and her 4-year-old daughter, who was in the backseat. Mortally wounded, Castile moaned and said, I wasnt reaching for it.

Reynolds, who drew nationwide attention to the shooting by reporting it via Facebook Live immediately afterward, has consistently said Castile was reaching for his wallet to retrieve his drivers license, per Yanezs instructions. Yanez initially said he thought Castile was reaching for his gun; later he claimed to have seen Castile pulling out the pistol, which was found inside a front pocket on the right side of the dead mans shorts.

Yanez clearly acted out of fear. The question is whether that fear was reasonable in the circumstances and whether deadly force was the only way to address it.

Jeffrey Noble, an expert on police procedure, testified that Yanezs actions were objectively unreasonable. The officer had absolutely no reason to view Castile as a robbery suspect, Noble said, and could have mitigated the threat he perceived by telling Castile to put his hands on the dashboard or stepping back from the car window.

If Castile planned to shoot Yanez, why would he announce that he had a firearm? That disclosure was obviously aimed at avoiding trouble but had the opposite effect because Yanez was not thinking clearly.

Officers like Yanez, who is leaving his department under a voluntary separation agreement, pose a clear and present danger to law-abiding gun owners. Yet the National Rifle Association (NRA) has been curiously reticent about the case.

The day after the shooting, the NRA said the reports from Minnesota are troubling and must be thoroughly investigated. It promised the NRA will have more to say once all the facts are known.

The reports have been investigated, and the facts are known. Yet the NRA has not added anything to the bland, noncommittal statement it made a year ago. Youd think the nations largest and oldest civil rights organization would have more to say about an innocent man who was killed for exercising his Second Amendment rights.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine.

Creators Syndicate

Original post:
The NRA shuns a Second Amendment martyr - Chicago Sun-Times

Photo: Cathy Zuraw / Hearst Connecticut Media

Second amendment group opposes lawsuit in Sandy Hook shooting

The Connecticut Citizens Defense League has filed a brief opposing a lawsuit that would hold manufacturers and sellers of the gun used in the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting liable for the crime.

The suit filed by the families of 10 victims argues that makers and distributors of the AR-15-style rifle used in the shooting recklessly marketed it to civilians, ignoring the risks that it would be misused. The suit was thrown out by a lower court, and the families have appealed to have it reinstated.

CCDLs brief against the reinstatement argues that the firearm is 25 percent as powerful as a regular hunting rifle, because it uses lightweight ammunition. It also states that crime statistics show that ordinary handguns are more than 15 times more likely to be used by mass shooters than the model of firearm chosen by Adam Lanza.

If the defendants are held liable in this case, then, it will set a precedent that would expose businesses to legal liability each time they sell virtually any type of firearm in Connecticut, the CCDL news release states.

View original post here:
Second amendment group opposes lawsuit in Sandy Hook shooting - Danbury News Times

wbur Commentary A Capitol Hill Police officer stands watch in Alexandria, Va., Wednesday, June 14, 2017, after a shooting involving House Majority Whip Steve Scalise of La., and others, during a Congressional baseball practice. (Cliff Owen/AP)

Like what you read here? Sign up for our twice-weekly newsletter.

James T. Hodgkinson, who died in a shootout with police Wednesday after wounding Congressman Steve Scalise and four others, apparently had a valid gun license. Whether or not he came by his weapons legally, the tragedy is bound to reopen our gun control debate and the assertion by Second Amendment fundamentalists, contrary to the view of most firearms owners, that gun control is unconstitutional.

They're wrong. I have this on good authority from two expert sources the late Justice Antonin Scalia, and the Founders who wrote the Constitution.

Gun-rights advocates may quote the Second Amendment robotically, but ... they apparently skip over its insistence that any militia be well regulated.

Before his death last year, Scalia was the Supreme Courts conservative brain, devoted to interpreting the founding document with what he saw as the intent of its drafters. Those founding fathersfamously quill-penned the Second Amendment: 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. So it will pop the bubble wrap in extremists minds to hear that in not allowingrestrictions on firearms, theyve been genuflecting to a myth.

Thats because theyve skated over inconvenient words from both the men who wrote the Constitution and Scalia, their medium.

Start with the latter. Gun control advocates cite his words in District of Columbia v. Heller, which at first blush is odd, since that 2008 case saw the high court uphold an individuals right to bear arms without serving in a state militia. Yet Scalia, writing the majority opinion, declared, Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited, adding that it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on legislated conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms, he wrote. Scalia also OKd restrictions in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings and on felons and the mentally ill.

These categories capture the vast majority of gun laws in America, says UCLA constitutional law professor Adam Winkler. In short, theres plenty of room under the Second Amendment for gun control.

Unnerving as those words will be to people who support fewer restrictions, they might suggest Scalia was an apostate from the Founders views. Uh-uh. Gun-rights advocates may quote the Second Amendment robotically, but, Winkler notes, they apparently skip over its insistence that any militia be well regulated.

Early America lived by that modifier, Fordham University historian Saul Cornell says: For instance, starting in the colonial period, states enacted a variety of safe-storage measures to deal with the danger posed by stored gunpowder. A 1786 law went as far as prohibiting the storage of a loaded gun in any building in Boston. Such laws, including early versions of gun registration, Winkler says, were so restrictive that todays NRA leaders would never support them.

Gun advocates will point out that Hodgkinsons rampage was itself stopped by guns, when police killed him-- glossing over the fact, as they gloss over the Second Amendments inconvenient words and history, that no one objects to trained police with guns.

Of course, the Founders permitted any number of things that would make moderns cringe slavery comes to mind so rights advocates are free to argue that the drafters views on guns were wrong. But they can't cloak extremism with phony Second Amendment protections, and anyway, its hard to come up with a defense for such extremism that passes the giggle test, as Scalias writing attests.

Beyond the restrictions permitted by the Heller opinion, judges spanning the ideological spectrum have upheld other gun controls, such as assault weapon bans. Even legal scholars who disagree with these rulings concede there are a lot of them. Its true that in a culture steeped in gun ownership, laws alone will never be enough to end Americas firearms carnage. Other measures that account for the resilience of that culture will be necessary as well.

But as this weeks atrocity recycles our endless gun control debate, its worth remembering a less familiar point. Those who think the Constitution permits unfettered gun possession should read it first.

Follow Cognoscenti on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for our twice-weekly newsletter.

Rich Barlow Cognoscenti contributor Rich Barlow writes for BU Today, Boston University's news website.

More

Originally posted here:
After Congressional Baseball Shooting, We Need To Talk About Gun Control - WBUR

At the center of the gun control debate, few things are as hotly disputed in the United States as the Constitution's Second Amendment.

History of the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment provides U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. Ratified in December 1791, the amendment says:

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.

James Madison originally proposed the Second Amendment shortly after the Constitution was officially ratified as a way to provide more power to state militias, which today are considered the National Guard. It was deemed a compromise between Federalists those who supported the Constitution as it was ratified and the anti-Federalists those who supported states having more power. Having just used guns and other arms to ward off the English, the amendment was originally created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees the inalienable rights of citizens.

Interpretations of the Second Amendment

Since its ratification, Americans have been arguing over the amendment's meaning and interpretation. One side interprets the amendment to mean it provides for collective rights, while the opposing view is that it provides individual rights.

Those who take the collective side think the amendment gives each state the right to maintain and train formal militia units that can provide protection against an oppressive federal government. They argue the "well regulated militia" clause clearly means the right to bear arms should only be given to these organized groups. They believe this allows for only those in the official militia to carry guns legally, and say the federal government cannot abolish state militias.

Those with the opposite viewpoint believe the amendment gives every citizen the right to own guns, free of federal regulations, to protect themselves in the face of danger. The individualists believe the amendment's militia clause was never meant to restrict each citizen's rights to bear arms.

Both interpretations have helped shape the country's ongoing gun control debate. Those supporting an individual's right to own a gun, such as the National Rifle Association, argue that the Second Amendment should give all citizens, not just members of a militia, the right to own a gun. Those supporting stricter gun control, like the Brady Campaign, believe the Second Amendment isn't a blank check for anyone to own a gun. They feel that restrictions on firearms, such as who can have them, under what conditions, where they can be taken, and what types of firearms are available, are necessary.

The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment

While the right to bear arms is regularly debated in the court of public opinion, it is the Supreme Court whose opinion matters most. Yet despite an ongoing public battle over gun ownership rights, until recent years the Supreme Court had said very little on the issue.

The Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C.

One of the first rulings came in 1876 in U.S. v. Cruikshank. The case involved members of the Ku Klux Klan not allowing black citizens the right to standard freedoms, such as the right to assembly and the right to bear arms. As part of the ruling, the court said the right of each individual to bear arms was not granted under the Constitution. Ten years later, the court affirmed the ruling in Presser v. Illinois when it said that the Second Amendment only limited the federal government from prohibiting gun ownership, not the states.

The Supreme Court took up the issue again in 1894 in Miller v. Texas. In this case, Dallas' Franklin Miller sued the state of Texas, arguing that despite state laws saying otherwise, he should have been able to carry a concealed weapon under Second Amendment protection. The court disagreed, saying the Second Amendment does not apply to state laws, like Texas' restrictions on carrying dangerous weapons.

All three of the cases heard before 1900 cemented the court's opinion that the Bill of Rights, and specifically the Second Amendment, does not prohibit states from setting their own rules on gun ownership.

Until recently, the Supreme Court hadn't ruled on the Second Amendment since U.S. v. Miller in 1939. In that case, Jack Miller and Frank Layton were arrested for carrying an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines, which had been prohibited since the National Firearms Act was enacted five years earlier. Miller argued that the National Firearms Act violated their rights under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed, however, saying "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

It would be nearly 70 years before the court took up the issue again, this time in the District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. The case centered on Dick Heller, a licensed special police office in Washington, D.C., who challenged the nation's capital's handgun ban. For the first time, the Supreme Court ruled that despite state laws, individuals who were not part of a state militia did have the right to bear arms. As part of its ruling, the court wrote, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

The court would rule on the issue again two years later as part of McDonald v. City of Chicago, which challenged the city's ban on private handgun ownership. In a similar 5-to-4 ruling, the court affirmed its decision in the Heller case, saying the Second Amendment "applies equally to the federal government and the states."

Despite the recent rulings, the debate on gun control continues. Incidents like those in Aurora, Colo., and Sandy Hook, N.J., only serve as motivation for both sides to have their opinions heard and considered.

Related:

Originally posted here:
The Second Amendment & the Right to Bear Arms