Mediaboss Marketing

Liberal politicians who run states and cities have certain habits they come back to again and again. One is the passage of gun bans they know perfectly well are clear violations of the Second Amendment. Why do the do this? Partly because ideologically they cant help themselves. But also: They hope to create test cases in the courts that, they hope, will produce favorable rulings and thus establish case law that renders the entire Second Amendment null and void.

Toward that end, the State of Maryland scored a very big victory today, as the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an assault weapons ban that cant possibly be defended as constitutional. So why did it survive? Because there are many in the federal judiciary who share the goal of repealing the Second Amendment, and hope to be the judges assigned to these test cases. The Fourth Circuit really outdid itself with this one.

How bad was the ruling? Take it away, David French:

How can it reach such a conclusion? Remember the formula: contempt, willful ignorance, and fear.

First, lets look at the courts breathtaking contempt for individual rights. Rather than read the Supreme Courts controlling opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller according to its plain language, it deliberately distorts Justice Antonin Scalias majority opinion. In Heller, Scalia clearly stated that the sorts of weapons the Second Amendment protects are those that are in common use at the time, with exceptions that apply to those weapons that are dangerous and unusual.

Why the addition of and unusual? Because every single working gun ever made is dangerous. To illustrate his point, Scalia then provides examples of specific types of dangerous and unusual guns M-16 rifles and the like. Heres a news flash: The M-16 isnt the same as a civilian assault weapon like the AR-15. The M-16 variants in use in the United States military are capable of being fired in both semi-automatic and fully automatic (three-round burst) modes. If you think that the M-16 and AR-15 are alike, then walk to your local gun store and try to buy an M-16.

Go ahead. Ill wait.

Are you back yet? Do you have an M-16? No? Thats because its an entirely different category of weapon, governed by different federal statutes. The Fourth Circuit, however, deliberately conflated semi-automatic weapons and automatic weapons. And it went to absurd lengths to do so.

There is much more to Frenchs excellent analysis than I can fairly excerpt here, so please click through and read the whole thing.

Its very instructive to see that the Fourth Circuit so badly mangled Scalias argument in Heller to reach the conclusion it did. It speaks to a group of judges looking for a legal rationale for a ruling they were already bound and determined to issue, rather than following the law wherever it leads you, which is what judges are supposed to do.

Heres whats ironic, though, about the dreck that is this ruling and Frenchs solid analysis of what makes it so bad. Having lost the presidency, Congress, and the vast majority of governorships and state legislatures, the only thing the left still has to thwart conservative policy initiatives is the prospect of help from liberal judges. In this case, they upheld an unconstitutional law passed by a Democrat governor and legislature in a blue state. But elsewhere, as in Texas today, judges are striking down duly passed laws that by any reasonable standard pass constitutional muster.

The Supreme Court may yet save the Second Amendment, and maybe a judge that understands the separation of powers will restore the right of Texas lawmakers to decide who gets taxpayer money. But the reason this is so ironic is that David French was one of the leading voices arguing during the presidential campaign that the Supreme Court was not sufficient reason to support Donald Trump in the general election over Hillary Clinton.

I think French is a terrific writer and thinker on all kinds of issues, but he was #NeverTrump to the core and believed a Trump presidency would be so injurious to the conservative movement that even the prospect of a liberal court majority for the next generation wasnt enough reason to back Trump.

I wonder how happy French is today that Trump was elected, and that Neil Gorsuch stands a very good chance of being the deciding vote in a ruling that overturns the Fourth Circuit and restores the Second Amendment. The federal judiciary is out of control, and that is a much bigger problem that Donald Trumps communication style or anything else you dont like about him.

Follow this link:
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decides the Second Amendment is just a suggestion - Canada Free Press

Yes, the Second Amendment is outdated. Or, waitIm sorryare there still militias marching about? This is the right to bear arms qualifier, correct? Here's some of the historical context:

This amendment-turned-platitude was drafted into the Constitution purely so that slave owners could form militias and repel uprisings, so that southern white men could protect and maintain their lofty stands from the federal government, from slaves, from Native Americans, from foreign incursion; so that the settlers and newly-branded Americans could arm themselves in preparation for the wars and skirmishes with England and France and Spain and Mexico and Canada that all might occur on domestic soil (many of which did end up occurring); so that the country as a whole could arm itself against the kind of tyranny itd so freshly escaped; so that frontiersmen could hunt for food, kill grizzly bears and wolves and wildcats and fight with native tribes and foreigners, not so that peppy yeomen could defend themselves and their buddies from machine-gun madmen and terrorists.

This was no conception of the founding fathers, no consideration made by our untouchably sacred Constitution, which systemically provided for the non-relevancy of women, and for the legalization of slavery and the oppression of anybody not white, not landed, not malewhich has been amended 17 times, but apparently never again.

What exactly is the pro-gun rights supporters ideal world?

A world in which every Ma and Pa holstered themselves and their of age children each morning before running along to work or school? So that in the event of a mass shooting, the banker or checker or student or clerk everyman could draw and fire against the perpetrator(s)? Surely, there would be no trouble in this?

If, on the occasion of a wild man pulling a gun and firing into a crowd, three-dozen others did the same and fired at these perpetratorsthere wouldnt be a mess of a crossfire; a mess of figuring out who the bad guy iswho it is, exactly, all the good guys are supposed to be shooting at when everybody else has got a gun; no mess of dead innocents and mayhem as every man and women with a firearm looks to their neighbors empty holster and swings round?

Perhaps we should bring the gun manufacturers into the national bureaucracys fold? More so than they already are, that is. I see no real reason why the NRA shouldnt just be another governmental agency. Perhaps they could issue pistols to every American upon their 18th birthdaysurely, this would prevent violence on our city streets and in our city bars and our city schools. Lets just give each and every soul a killing machine; This, thissurelywould finally put an end to all the killing.

Yes, if only every college student, every barkeep, every passerby in this past Sunday mornings crowd on Welch Avenue that was shot into would have had a pistol strapped to their thigh, then the situation would have been all the more improved. If, after, the perpetrators had taken their shots and sped away, a good 15 or so men and women would have pulled out a gun and looked to each other in confusionthen look where we might be. Look what mightve been accomplished.

NoI must slow down. I speak crazily. I speak of exaggerations, of unfairly reached logical ends and enough! say the pro-gun rights folk. Not everybody needs a gun. Only those whove been properly vetted, whove taken the proper tests; those among us who could be reasonable and responsible under pressurethose who really know what theyre doing.

But wait? does this not eerily sound like something weve already got? Something, perhaps, like the police force?

This is why we ought to strike the Second Amendment in its current state. Replace it with something more apropos. Our world is a changed one from 1787, and it deserves some changed legislation.

I do not call for the prohibition of guns (which is impossible) or even for particularly strict gun control law (just stricter than what weve already got). But what I do really call forwhats desperately neededis some actually meaningful, relevant, worthwhile, updated Constitutional language that clamps down on what is such a pathetically weak truism and argument: the right to bear arms.

The above paragraphearlier in the week having been my concluding thoughtsmust now survive a few more addendums.

A bill has been proposed in the Iowa legislature which would provide for the legal carrying of firearms on campus grounds.

I need not restate so much of what Ive already mentioned, but would merely remark that whatever supposed belief in efficacy there could exist (on the part of the bills supporters) for the handing over of such a dangerous right to a pack of green 1822 year-olds is beyond delusional. This is an absolutely wild proposed solution to a very serious problem, and it deserves a more serious resolution.

More guns simply arent the answer. Theyve never been the answer. There are more complex issues at the root of these violent symptoms, and to treat the symptoms alone with such a surface-level reaction would be a grave mistake. It may take some horrible tragedy for the nation to unite on this front, and for that I am truly sorry.

See the original post:
Felker: Guns on campus? How about we strike the Second Amendment? - Iowa State Daily

These past few weeks have been busy for those of us working in the media.

We have inaugurated a brand-new president, there have been executive orders and Twitter rants, nominations, protests, shadowy figures on the National Security Council, nominations, intrigue. We have brought back into vogue the time-honored American pastime of punching Nazis in the face, which turns out to be bad for Nazis but good for morale.

Simply put, there has been a lot to talk about recently.

One story that received attention for precisely 15 minutes before being buried under more tweets from the president was a piece of legislation, approved by Congress, that would ease gun restrictions for people suffering from mental illness.

The restriction was introduced under the Obama administration and requires more stringent background checks for customers who have been diagnosed with mental health issues. Nationwide, the rule affects roughly 75,000 people.

Understandably, gun control advocates and progressive groups have been upset about this, and it immediately raises questions about gun safety and responsibility. Gun control has long been a polarizing political issue, centering mainly on balancing the Second Amendment with public safety.

One issue lost in the debate is simply this: Guns are so much more than a convenient way to shoot each other (though that, too, should not be dismissed).

There is also the cultural aspect of gun ownership, something that goes back to the founding of our country. It has been a time-honored tradition throughout the United States to come together as a people, take aim with our fellow citizens, and go pew pew pew at all of our social and economic problems in order to make them go away.

This principle has served us well over the course of our history. It has been the guiding principle of our foreign policy, in fact, since at least World War II. In that time we have outlasted the Soviet Union, built the Interstate Highway system, and put a man on the moon.

An appropriate analogy can be found by our very own Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, in her statement during her confirmation hearing in the U.S. Senate, when she explained that guns were needed in public schools to protect students from grizzly bears:

I think probably there, I would imagine that theres probably a gun in the school to protect from potential grizzlies, DeVos said.

The comment sparked widespread ridicule in the media, but I think we should hear her out. Without guns in public schools, after all, how would we shoot down grizzly bears intent on breaking in through the windows and unlocked doors of the building?

If we ban all of the guns, wont that just embolden the grizzlies to terrorize the nation further? Grizzly bears, after all, are not law-abiding citizens. Law abiding citizens are law-abiding by default, because we say they are, which is why they get guns in the first place. The logic is clear: We cannot and will not be at the mercy of a lawless bear population breaking into the honey pots of law-abiding citizens across the nation.

DeVos, to her credit, sympathized with the victims of violent shootings when pressed to explain her views: Senator, if the question is around gun violence and the results of that, please know that I, Imy heart bleeds and is broken for those families that have lost any individual due to gun violence.

DeVos did not specify whether the bleeding was due to a bullet wound or some other form of injury unrelated to gun violence.

As we go forward, it would serve us well to consider each side of the debate.

On one hand, there is public safety to worry about, and the right of an individual not to be shot in the face. On the other hand, there is the Second Amendment guaranteeing citizens the right to bear arms, as well as our own traditions and heritage.

One can look at it the discharge of firearms as just one more time-honored American tradition. And these traditions, after all, are what make America great: shooting off fireworks into the neighbors yard every 4th of July; covering our vegetables in liquid cheese; hanging tiny American flags from the windows of our SUVs as we drive around the highways and back roads of our nation, the exhaust fumes rippling up into the clouds like a burnt offering to capitalism and the wonders of the internal combustion engine.

These are the relics of our cultural heritage that we will pass down to future generations, and gun violence seems to be a part of it, for better or worse. Our own Vice President Dick Cheney, in fact, shot a man in the face while on a hunting expedition in 2006, an incident he called an accident. And the country survived.

Life went on as it had before: Cars crossed and re-crossed our slowly-crumbling infrastructure, the sun rose and set over the office towers and strip malls of our nation, and somewhere out there in rural Wyoming, a lawless grizzly bear was put down in a heroic act of self-defense, children and teachers alike cheered in unison, and the educational process continued throughout the United States of America like it had for generations.

The rest is here:
The Second Amendment vs potential grizzlies - Psuvanguard.com

If Kansas lawmakers insist on allowing people to carry concealed firearms at the University of Kansas Medical Center, theres virtually no chance the Legislature will prohibit them on college or university campuses.

Thats unfortunate, because concealed weapons dont belong at any of those places.

A tie vote Wednesday on a measure in the House Federal and State Affairs Committee to ban concealed carry at the KU Medical Center doomed what was perhaps the best chance opponents had of preventing adults from being allowed to carry concealed weapons into hospitals or on college campuses.

Its not surprising, but its nevertheless disappointing, that Kansans trying to undo provisions of state laws that had expanded concealed carry to college campuses, hospitals and mental health clinics and all but eliminated restrictions on adults carrying concealed weapons have been unsuccessful at every turn. Earlier this session, a Senate committee turned away a broader bill.

They can take some consolation in being able to defeat efforts Wednesday by gun rights advocates to require landlords of government subsidized housing to allow tenants to have guns and to require private businesses in developments financed even in part with state sales tax money to allow concealed weapons in their businesses.

As have so many other debates about guns, the vote to keep concealed weapons out of the KU Med Center came down to arguments about the Second Amendment and public safety. The victors Wednesday said that the Second Amendment gives them the right to take their guns into the medical center and that guns in the hands of decent people there and elsewhere would make other people safer. The alternate argument is that Second Amendment rights are not absolute, that hospitals already are safe and that bringing guns into them enhances risks, not safety.

To be fair, hospitals and colleges have had an alternative to having to permit the presence of concealed weapons. Those include additional personnel and scanners that could detect weapons at every entrance of every building.

But as the writers of the Family and Personal Protection Act surely knew when they introduced it, such security measures at universities and hospitals would be so expensive as to be alternatives in name only.

Read more from the original source:
Vote on gun issue unfortunate | Editorials | salina.com - Salina Journal (subscription)

When Justice Antonin Scalia passed away suddenly last year, the Supreme Court lost its premier conservative voice and defender of the Second Amendment.

Justice Scalia was a champion of individual freedoms, and adhered to a strong originalistphilosophy of interpreting the Constitution. With little room for the personal politics that many judges try to inject into court rulings, Scalia relied on the text of the document to decide cases.

After eight years of anti-gun policies from the Obama Administration an open seat on the Court is a welcome opportunity to return to the principles of the Constitution.

That is also why its good news President Trump chose Neil Gorsuch, a current federal appellate judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, as his nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court. Gorsuch is someone who can fill this critical void left by Justice Scalia.

Gorsuch has also followed an originalist interpretation of the Constitution during his legal career, having been appointed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals by President George W. Bush, and before that, serving in the Department of Justice.

A firm belief in adhering to the freedoms spelled out in the Constitution by our Founding Fathers has given Judge Gorsuch a steady hand, and made him a popular and approachable member of the 10th Circuit. Though he has only ruled on a few Second Amendment related cases, Gorsuch has proved himself to be a defender of gun rights.

He made his stance very clear when he wrote in one legal opinion that "the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly."

With the current Court almost deadlocked on gun issues, any potential cases that come before the Supreme Court this year could have a make-or-break impact on Second Amendment rights in this country. If the Court decides to hear any gun related cases this year, it is critical that there be a majority of justices on the bench who believe in the Constitutional right to bear arms.

One potential case that could come before the Supreme Court this year challenges an individuals right to carry a gun for self-defense, and requiring them to prove to the government that they have a legitimate reason for doing so.

In 2014, Peruta v. California was decided by three judges on the 9th Circuit, who ruled that San Diego Countys policy of a gun owner needing a documented "good cause" in order to obtain a concealed carry permit was in violation of the Second Amendment.

However, the victory for the Constitution was short-lived, and the ruling was appealed. All 11 judges on the 9th Circuit were called in to rehear the case, and the ruling was overturned in 2016. The California Rifle and Pistol Association has petitioned the Supreme Court to review this case, and if their request is granted, Gorsuch will be a crucial vote. No citizen should need a government approved "reason" to carry a firearm it is already expressly stated in the Constitution.

An appeal has also been filed to ask the Supreme Court to hear a challenge to District of Columbia v. Heller, which in 2008 affirmed that it is a constitutional right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion for that case, which was decided in a close 5-4 decision.

If the case is accepted by the Court, the justices will be asked to rule on a persons right to carry a gun outside their home for self-defense. With the decision in Heller being so close, it is critical that the Second Amendment have another advocate on the Court.

After eight years of anti-gun policies from the Obama administration, which sought to chip away at the right to bear arms, an open seat on the Court is a welcome opportunity to return to the principles of the Constitution. Instead of special interests and judges who attempt to shape public policy through court cases, Gorsuchs originalist and textualist viewpoint provides clear guidance uninfluenced by politics.

In the statement he gave following the announcement of his nomination, Gorsuch said, "Standing here, in a house of history, and acutely aware of my own imperfections, I pledge that if I am confirmed, I will do all my powers permit to be a faithful servant to the Constitution and laws of this great country."

With all of the potential challenges to the Constitution in the coming years, Gorsuch provides a foothold on what could be a rocky path.

Tim Schmidt is the president and founder of the U.S. Concealed Carry Association,and may be contacted at Press@USCCA.com.

Here is the original post:
Gorsuch Could Save the Second Amendment - LifeZette