Mediaboss Marketing

Current city ordinances in Tacoma establish penalties for stun guns or Tasers that include up to a year in jail and/or a $5,000 fine. (Photo: City of Tacoma)

A legal team retained by gun rights advocates are warning aWashington city that its prohibition on stun guns and Tasers could land them in federal court.

The Firearms Policy Coalition is holding Tacoma to task over its local ordinances against the sale, manufacturing, purchasing, possessing or carrying of any electroshock device by a law-abiding resident, visitor or traveler.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms not only the right to keep and bear firearms, said FPC attorney Stephen Stamboulieh in an April 3 letter to the Tacoma city attorney, citing the 2008 Heller decision as well as a 2016 Supreme Court case directly concerning stun guns.

Under current Tacoma codes, with exceptions for devices used by law enforcement, possession of an electronic weapon in the city can result in a $5,000 fine, or one year in jail, or both.

In response to the groups request that Tacoma remedy its potentially unconstitutional local ordinance within 30 days or prepare for a lawsuit, Acting City Attorney William Fosbre said his staff is reviewing the law and will brief the city council, police department and other relevant policy makers on the current enforceability of the current ban on the devices.

Noting that other cities across the nation have scrapped their bans on electronic weapons in recent months following costly legal challenges, Phillip Watson, a civil rights advocate with the FPC, warned in a follow-up letter sent this week to Mayor Marilyn Strickland that Tacoma taxpayers and residents would be well-served by an expeditious repeal of the outdated and ill-advised subject ban.

FPC President Brandon Combs told Guns.com the city manager and attorney are preparing an ordinance to change the law, and that it would probably be ready for their June 6 council meeting.

See the article here:
Second Amendment group prods Tacoma to repeal Taser ban - Guns.com

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

However, everything stalled as both the House and Senate appear to have largely embraced a return to status quo on gun rights.

What follows are five pro-gun moves that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) could be making right now, but are not.

National ReciprocityNational Reciprocity legislation was introduced by Rep. Richard Hudson on January 3, 2017the first day of Congress. Breitbart News reported that Hudsons billnot only establishes national reciprocity for concealed permit holders but also national reciprocity for residents who live in states that require no permit for concealed carry. In other words, it is national right to carry for law-abiding citizens, period. Hudsons bill has since been complimented by national reciprocity legislation introduced by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), yet neither the House nor the Senate have taken the bills up. President Trump has already made clear that he supports national reciprocity, but he cannot unilaterally enact it. It will have to come to him via the legislative branch.

Hearing Protection ActThe Hearing Protection Act is firearm deregulation legislation which emphasizes the health benefits of suppressors. The Act has medical doctors on its side, while Gabby Giffords and other gun controllers push ear plugs and ear muffs as sufficient hearing protection.Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership (DRGO) explain:

Hearing protection in the form of ear plugs or ear muffs, alone or in combination, can only reduce noise exposure by approximately 20-30 decibels. This limitation in noise reduction may still expose a firearms user to damaging levels of noise; 120 decibels is still louder than a car horn from three feet away. Thus, inside the canal and over the ear devices (i.e., ear plugs and ear muffs)the only current generally available protectionare inadequate for impulse noise protection, and when used together they deafen the wearer to all external sound.

At the same time, DRGO stresses that suppressors offered significantly greater noise reduction than ear-level protection, usually greater than 50% better. The Hearing Protection Act removes the cumbersome process which law-abiding citizens currently have to go through to acquire a suppressor, thus making the hearing benefits of the devices readily accessible.

The Hearing Protection Act was introduced byRepresentatives Jeff Duncan (R-SC-3) and John Carter (R-TX-31) on January 9, yet it sits. Donald Trump Jr. has made clear that his fatherour Presidentwould sign suppressor deregulation should it reach his desk.

Repeal of Gun Ban for Military VeteransThe gun ban for military veterans is structured almost identically to the Social Security gun ban which the House and Senate both voted to repeal in February, and which President Trump signed on February 28. The gun ban for military veterans opens the door forveterans receiving disability benefits to be investigated if their benefit check is sent to a third party to help manage finances. The premise behind launching an investigation is the presupposition that those who require help managing finances may be mentally unfit for gun ownership.

On March 16, 2017, Breitbart News reported that the House voted to repeal this ban via the passage of the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, sponsored byHouse Committee on Veteran Affairs chairman Phil Roe (R-Tenn.). We are waiting for the Senate to follow suit so military veterans can know their Second Amendment rights are shielded like those of Social Security beneficiaries.

Repeal of Chuck Schumer gun controlGun Owners of America (GOA) is urging the House to repeal a gun control amendment originally added to legislation by then-Rep. Chuck Schumer in the late 1980s. The amendment makes it harder forpersons previously subject to a gun ban to regain their constitutional rights after paying their debt to society. GOAs Erich Pratt said, It is important for Congress to repeal the Schumer ban immediately. Too many good Americans are being prevented from exercising their Second Amendment rights. We hope that Rep. John Culberson (R-TX-7) will single-handedly remove the Schumer ban from his Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill.

Pass Legislation to End Operation Chock PointOperation Chock Point was used by the Obama administration to drive a wedge between financial institutions and firearm/ammunition makers and sellers. The practical outworking of the operation was simply another avenue for the lefts war on the Second Amendment. For example, on January 14, 2015, Breitbart News reported thatMike Schuetz, owner of Hawkins Gunsin Hawkins, Wisconsinran his businessaccounts through Heritage Credit Union until said credit union called him in for a meeting and told him to close his account because they do not service businesses that deal in guns. Schuetz said, This is just a back door way for those wanting to infringe on your rights to keep and bear arms and is nothing more than discrimination to gun owners.

A story similar to Schuetzs was told by Scottsdale, Arizona, companyAmerican Spirit Arms, and the Washington Times reported on gun stores in Miami, Florida, and Henderson, Nevada, that faced a similar struggle.

Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO-03) has introduced legislation tomake sure Operation Choke Point cannot be revived by rogue operators in the Department of Justice while Trump is in office.

Luetkemeyer released a statement, saying:

Last Congress, the House of Representatives took the first step in putting an end, once and for all, to Operation Choke Point by passing my legislation. Although there is a new Administration and Department of Justice in place, this legislation is necessary to ensure that no future Administration will have the opportunity to negatively impact individuals and legal businesses through this unprecedented initiative. We must continue to demand greater transparency and end the practice of allowing government bureaucrats to use personal and political motivations to block financial services to licensed, legally-operating businesses.

American gun owners voted for a pro-gun House and Senate to create a situation where a GOP trifectaHouse, Senate, White Housecould repeal gun control and pass pro-Second Amendment legislation that will positively impact American life for decades to come. It is time for McConnell and Ryan to act by passing these measures and repealing others, where apropos.

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 post:
Five Pro-Second Amendment Moves McConnell and Ryan Could be Making - 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

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

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